Kolkata Court January 1892 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.
Shashi Kumar Dey of Paikparah Vs. Shashi Kumar Dey of Khilparah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19NULL345(P.C.),(1892)ILR19Cal355
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. The rule was argued before us on the 14th December 1891, and we took time to consider our judgment.2. In support of the rule it was argued that the sanction was illegal, because the Registrar ought not to have travelled outside the record of the Small Cause Court case, which disclosed no foundation for the charges made. In other words, it was argued that the Registrar ought not to have made any enquiry; and in support of the argument the following cases were relied upon:Hurro Nath Roy and others (Petitioners) (7 W.R., 482), In re Kasi Chunder Mozumdar I.L.R., 6 Cal., 440, and Zemindar of Sivagari v. The Queen I.L.R. 6 Mad. 29.3. The facts of the case of Hurro Nath Roy and others are as follows:Sristeedhur Dass, alleging himself to be a mokuraridar, sued Hurro Nath Roy and others to have his mokurari right declared, and obtained a decree. On special appeal to this Court the case was remanded to the Lower Appellate Court in order to determine whether a document...
Jagan Nath Gorai and ors. Vs. Watson and Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal341
Tottenham and Banerjee, JJ.1. This and two similar appeals between the same parties have been heard together; the suits having been governed by one judgment in the Lower Appellate Court. That Court dismissed the suits as being barred by Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure under a ruling by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohendro Narain Chaturaj v. Gopal Mondul I.L.R. 17 Cal. 769. This second appeal is based on the contention that the Full Bench ruling is not applicable to this case, because the ground on which this suit was brought is not within the scope of Sections 244 and 312 of the Code. By Section 312 the appellants probably meant 311.2. And as regards two of the plaintiff-appellants it is contended that they were not parties to the previous suit and decree, and cannot be barred from this suit by the section quoted by the Lower Appellate Court.3. The suit was brought to set aside a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent against two of the plaintif...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›