Kolkata Court January 1889 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.
Sheo Pershad Singh and ors. Vs. Doorga Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal194
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiffs, respondents, to recover possession with mesne profits of a nine-anna share of a certain property, Mehal Chuck Shah Mohamedpore, after setting aside a sale, held on the 6th of June 1883, of a larger share of the Mehal, that is, a thirteen-anna share, made up of the nine-anna share in suit, and of another 4-anna share belonging to the defendants Nos. 3 to 23, for arrears of Government revenue due in respect of the said thirteen-annas.2. The grounds upon which the plaintiffs seek to have that sale set aside are- first, irregularity in the sale; and, secondly, fraud on the part of the defendants. The irregularities set out in the plaint need not be considered here, as the judgment of the lower Court, as to the existence and effect of those irregularities, was given against the plaintiffs, and no cross-objections have been urged before us against that judgment. We would only add that, upon the face of the judgment, there doe...
Shuttrughon Das Coomar Vs. Hokna Showtal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal159
Pigot and Beverley, JJ.1. In this case there are two conflicting decisions, and the Small Cause Court Judge has very properly referred the case to us. The question is whether an action for wrongful seizure of cattle will lie in a Civil Court. Mr. Justice Mitter and Mr. Justice Maclean, in the case of Aslem v. Katta Durzi 2 C.L.R. 344, have held that it would not, the remedy by Act I of 1871 being, in the opinion of both those learned Judges, the only remedy available. On the other hand, in the case of Nomaz Mollah v. Lall Mohun Tagadgeer 15 W.R. 279, it was held by Mr. Justice Loch and Mr. Justice Ainslie that a suit would lie, notwithstanding the provisions of Act III of 1857, the similar Act then in force. That case does not seem to have been before the learned Judges who decided the case of Aslem v. Kalla Durzi 2 C.L.R. 344 which was not argued. Under these circumstances, we must form our opinion by the light of those two cases, and upon such grounds as appear to us to exist; upon a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›