Kolkata Court February 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.
Ramjodu Mojumdar and anr. Vs. Poresh Nath Mojumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal246
O'kinealy and Trevelyan, JJ.1. In this case a decree for foreclosure was made in the ordinary form under Section 86 of the Transfer of Property Act. Subsequently the plaintiff, without taking any proceedings under Section 87, obtained an order for possession of the property and got possession accordingly. There were then some proceedings with reference to setting aside the decree which are not material to the present purpose.2. Subsequently the appellant before us, the mortgagor, made an application to be allowed to redeem this property. The application was allowed by the Munsif on the ground that no order had been obtained under provisions of Section 87 of the Transfer of Property Act, but the District Judge on appeal set aside that order and dismissed the application for redemption.3. We think the Judge was wrong in the order that he made, and that the Munsif was right. The terms of Section 86 have been taken apparently from the terms of the decree which was formerly made in the Cour...
Queen-empress Vs. Barton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal238
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The facts are stated in the case certified by the Advocate-General, and it is not necessary to re-state them here.2. It was argued before us, that, under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, Section 267, the prisoner should have been tried in every respect as if he had been tried at the Central Criminal Court in London, and the cases of Queen v. Thompson l B.L.R. O. Cr. 1 and Beg. v. Elmstone 7 Bom. Cr. 89 were cited and relied on on behalf of the prisoner. As to those cases, I think it enough to say that the words relied on were obiter dicta only, and that in the result the Court held in each case that the prisoners were properly tried according to the procedure of the Court before which the trial took place, 80 that both cases are authorities against the view which was pressed upon us.3. The question, however, depends upon the true construction of the statutory law. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, by no means contains the whole of the legislat...
Gokul Kristo Chunder Vs. Aukhil Chunder Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal457
Beverley, J.1. In these three cases the question raised is practically one and the same. It may be broadly stated thus: Has a Civil Court jurisdiction to execute a decree sent to it for that purpose under Section 2231 of the Code when that decree has been passed in a suit the value or amount of the subject-matter of which was in excess of the pecuniary limits of its ordinary jurisdiction?2. [The judgment here set out the facts in the three cases and then proceeded.]3. In all three cases, therefore, the point is virtually the same, namely, whether under Section 223 of the Code a decree can be sent for execution to, and can be executed by, a Court which, as regards its pecuniary jurisdiction, was not competent to make the decree.4. On the one side, it is contended that Section 223 contains no limitation as regards the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to which a decree may be sent for execution, similar to that contained in Section 252; that by Section 28 the Court to which a decree is...
Hari Gobind Adhikari Vs. Akhoy Kumar Mozumdar and ors., Minors, by the ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal365
Banerjee, J.Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, affirming that of the Court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's suit upon the ground that he had no right to maintain it, he being merely a benamidar for the real owner,'defendant No. 112. The objection urged in second appeal is that as defendant No. 11 is a party to this suit, and has disclaimed all interest in the subject-matter thereof, the defect in the framing of the suit and in the plaintiff's title is thereby cured. It is also contended upon the authority of the case of Sitanath Shah v. Nobin Chunder Boy 5 C. L E., 102 that the Courts below ought, if necessary, to have made the defendant No. 11 a co-plaintiff with the appellant.3. We do not think that these contentions are sound. The finding arrived at by the Courts below is that the plaintiff has no right to the property in suit, and is merely a benamidar for defendant No. 11. That being so, and his pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›