Kolkata Court March 1891 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.
Sarut Sunduri Debi on Her Death Her Heir Hemanto Kumari Debi and anr. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal322
Trevelyan and Banerjee, JJ.1. The learned pleader for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection that no special appeal lies in this case. The order of the Court below, which is the subject of the appeal before us, is an order giving leave to withdraw the appeal and to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The appellant before that Court had a decree made against him by the first Court, and the Appeal Court, under the powers which it has under the Code similar to those exercised by an original Court, gave this leave. The learned Advocate-General, who appears for the appellant, contends that an appeal does lie. The order is not included amongst the orders which are appealable under Section 588: but he contends that the order made is a decree within the meaning of the word 'decree' as given in Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A decree is there defined as 'the formal expression of an adjudication upon any right claimed, or defence set up, in a Civil Court, ...
Sheo Sahoy Panday Vs. Ram Rachia Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal333
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Sasseram by a zemindar to recover the sum of Rs. 246-4 from a raiyat on account of the rent of his holding, which the plaintiff stated the defendant held under a registered kabuliyat, dated May 10th, 1885, at an annual rental of Rs. 206. The defence set up in the statement was that the alleged kabuliyat was a forgery, and that the land held by the defendant was held by him as ancestral guzashta khasht at a rental of Rs. 153-1-6. Both the lower Courts have found that the kabuliyat is genuine, and was executed by the defendant, and that question is not disputed now; but it was argued before the Munsif and the District Judge that the entire rent cannot be enforced, because the kabuliyat contravenes the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, inasmuch as, if it is proved that the rent payable by the defendant for the land was Rs. 153-1-6 prior to the 10th of May 1885, the effect of the kabul...
Nobo Sunderi Dasi and anr. Vs. Charu Chunder Pal Guardian for Satish C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal327
Norris, J.1. Mehal Bildiha was the stridhan of one Haripriya, given to her by her father at the time of her marriage. Haripriya died on 16th July 1881, leaving three daughters, viz., Koermoni, Nobo Sunderi, the plaintiff No. 1, and Tunimoni, the plaintiff No. 2. At the time of Haripriya's death, Koermoni's husband was alive, and they had an adopted son, Satish Chunder, the defendant No. 1; Nobo Sunderi was a widow with a son, Shoshi Bhusan; Tunimoni was a childless widow. Shoshi Bhusan is now dumb and partially deaf, and has been so since 1879; he was not born dumb, but could speak for some years at least in his boyhood. After Haripriya's death, Koermoni got into possession of the mehal and had her name registered; she remained in possession down to the time of her death in February 1885, since when the defendant No. 1 has been in possession.2. The plaintiffs sued for possession of the mehal and for mesne profits; they alleged that they were the preferential heirs to their mother's str...
Sriram Samanta Vs. Kalidas Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal316
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. In second appeal the only point urged is that the Judge was wrong in holding that a certain petition, upon which the Munsif had relied, was inadmissible in evidence by reason of its not having been formally proved.2. The learned pleader for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that as the suit was of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and the subject-matter did not exceed Rs. 500, no second appeal lay.3. For the appellant it was contended that the suit was one 'for the profits of immoveable property belonging to the plaintiff which had been wrongfully received by the defendants,' which by virtue of Article 31 of schedule II of Act IX of 1887 is exempted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.4. The learned pleader for the respondents relied upon the following cases viz. Ram Peari Debia v. Dinonath Mookerjee 10 W.R. 375 Bheenuck Lall Mahton v. Rung Lall Mahton 11 W.R. 369 and Makhan Lall Datta v. Goribullah Sardar I.L.R. 17 Cal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›