Kolkata Court July 1888 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
ishur Chunder Bhaduri Vs. Jibun Kumari Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal26
Wilson and O'Kinealy, JJ.1. This is a suit against a banker, or his representative by the representative of an alleged customer of the bank, to recover money deposited with interest.2. (After stating the facts as above, and noticing other grounds on which the Lower Appellate Court had reversed the decision of the first Court, the judgment continued).3. The remaining ground on which the decree of the first Court was reversed, the ground of limitation, gives rise to more difficulty. The question is whether the case is governed by Article 59 or Article 60 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act. Article 59, dealing with 'money lent under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand,' prescribes a period of three years from the time 'when the loan is made.' Article 60, dealing with 'money deposited under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand,' prescribes three years from the time 'when the demand is made.' If the former of these articles governs the case as held by the Lower Appe...
Chunder Sikhur Sadhu and anr. Vs. Nadiar Chand Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal765
Norris, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs, who are moku-raridars of a certain taluk called Jamjari, to obtain khas possession of mouzah Sarisbad, which lies within the taluk. The mouzah is at present in the possession of the defendants, and was before that in the possession of their father, Tara Churn Singha. The plaintiff's case was that the lands were in the possession of the defendants, and of their father before them, as chakran lands, i.e., that they were held by the defendants in consideration of certain services to be rendered by them ; and they allege that these services were terminated in 1291, when the defendants were dismissed from the plaintiffs' service; and that at that time the plaintiffs became entitled to khas possession of the mouzah.2. The defendant's allegation was that the mouzah bad been in their possession and the possession of their predecessor in title for the last fifty years, not as chakran lands, but in dur mokurari tenure; and they attempted to p...
Rakhal Das Chatterji and anr. Vs. Kedar Nath Chatterji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal673
Beverley, J.1. The facts out of which this case arises are as follow:Defendant No. 2, in execution of a decree against the plaintiffs, attached the property now in suit, whereupon defendants Nos. 3 to 5 preferred a claim, and succeeded, on the 10th March 1881, in getting the attachment removed. On the 20th July 1881 defendant No. 3 sold the property to defendant No. 1, who is the appellant before us. In 1882 defendant No. 2 instituted a regular suit for a declaration that the property was liable to attachment. To that suit the appellant was no party. It appears to have been decided on 26th January 1883 in terms of a compromise by which plaintiffs' title to the property was admitted.2. Defendant No. 2 then proceeded to attach the property afresh, and this time he was met by a claim on the part of the appellant, which was allowed on the 15th August 1883.3. Defendant No. 2 thereupon brought a second suit to set aside the order in that claim case, and that suit was dismissed on the 17th of...
Hira Lal Das for Self and as Executor for His Minor Brother, Kanai Lal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal714
Pigot, J.1. We think the judgment of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and the appeal allowed. The Subordinate Judge treats the decision between the parties in the former suit, whereby an annual kist was decreed, as conclusive evidence of agreement or established usage between the parties. We think he has made two mistakes. That decree is not any evidence whatever of agreement between the parties. There was a dispute between them as to the time at which the rent was payable, and a decree was made in accordance with the law existing at the time ordering payment of rent yearly. This negatives, so far as it has any effect, such inference as might be drawn as to the existence of an agreement from the fact of yearly payments, as it explains them. Secondly, the Subordinate Judge refers to established usage between the parties, plainly treating that within the scope of Section 53 and using the words 'between the parties' as if they were in Section 53. That might be an useful addition to...
Chintamoni Mahapatro Vs. Sarup Se and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal703
Norris, J.1. We think that the finding of the lower appellate Court to the effect that this case is not governed by Section 10 of the Limitation Act is correct. The meaning of that section, as I understand it, is to declare that as a general rule trust property shall not be subject to any law of limitation; that no length of time shall bar an action to recover such property ; but that when trust property finds its way into the hands of an assignee for valuable consideration, the ordinary law of limitation shall apply; that the assignee shall have the same benefit as an ordinary purchaser of property, not trust property, would have. In this case the defendant was an auction-purchaser; and the question is, whether he is an assignee within the meaning of Section 10. We think that the lower appellate Court has rightly held that an auction-purchaser is an assignee within the meaning of that section. It was suggested by the learned pleader for the appellant that the word 'assigns' must be re...
Gunga Chunder Sen and ors. Vs. Gour Chunder Banikya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal671
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a rule which has been obtained for the purpose of revising a conviction of three men for an offence Under Sections 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, for the offence of having threatened the complainant within the meaning of those sections. The charge is a charge of having threatened him on the 28th Aughran 1294 and in support of that charge two witnesses are called who speak to what took place on that occasion.2. The facts of the case up to that point are these: that the complainant had purchased a ryoti tenure within the limits of the accused's zemindari, and the accused disliked his being there, and apparently, from what the witnesses say, they intimated their dislike of that to them. Two witnesses say that on that day they were at the house of the accused, when a peada of theirs came and told them that the complainant, notwithstanding what they had done, was still in the place and was still taking away the paddy on the land, upon...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›