Kolkata Court March 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.
Kanchan Modi and ors. Vs. Baij Nath Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal336
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the Additional District Judge of Bhagalpur.2. The suit was to enforce a mortgage security executed in favour of Labo Modi on the 10th June 1881; and it was brought by the cousin of Labo Modi and his sons, it being alleged in the plaint that he and the plaintiff No. 1, that is to say, the cousin, were members of a joint undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, and that since the death of Labo Modi the plaintiffs have continued to be members of the joint family.3. We observe that although the mortgagors were parties, to his suit, no personal decree was asked for against them. The relief that was asked for was that the property hypothecated in the mortgage bond might be sold for the satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim.4. A decree was passed in the plaintiffs' favour by the Court of First Instance; the Subordinate Judge, before whom an objection was raised by some of the defendants that by reaso...
Ananta Lal Mondul and anr. Vs. RajnaraIn Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal703
Tottenham, J.1. These are two appeals against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum setting aside a putni sale at the suit of two of the defaulting putnidars. One appeal is on behalf of the zemindars, preferred by the Receiver to their estate; and the other is preferred by the assignees of the auction-purchaser of the putni.2. The name of the putni is Naikpore, and the names of the putnidars, as recorded in the zemindars' books, are Madan Mohan Mondul, Hara Mohan Das, Nittyanund Mondul, and Ram Kisto Mondul. The two first named are dead, and the two plaintiffs are their sons and representatives. The plaintiff Ananta Lal was owner of an 8 annas share of the putni by inheritance from Madan Mohan, and alleges that he had purchased the 2 annas share of Ram Kisto. The other plaintiff, Radha Kisto, was owner of a 4 annas share; and Nittyanund, owner of the remaining 2 annas share, was a pro forma defendant in the suit.3. The plaintiffs sued to have the sale set aside upon the grounds ...
Nur Ali Dubash Vs. Abdul Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal765
Pigot and Macpherson, JJ.1. The plaintiff sues upon an agreement entered into between him and all the defendants. His claim in this suit is made against defendant No. 1 alone, the other defendants being made parties pro forma.2. Plaintiff and defendant No. 7 are ghat serangs or stevedores, and defendants 1 to 6 are dubashes at the port of Chittagong. The plaintiff says that there being competition between plaintiff and the defendants, they sustained serious losses in their respective business, and hence they entered into an agreement dated 27th August 1888.3. The plaintiff's case is that under that agreement the defendant No. 1 became bound to allow the plaintiff to act as ghat serang of a certain ship, the Madagascar, which arrived at Chittagong, and of which defendant No. 1 was dubash; that defendant No. 1 refused to allow plaintiff so to act; that this refusal caused loss to the plaintiff; and that defendant No. 1 thereby became liable under the agreement to pay the plaintiff Rs. 1,...
Grish Chunder Mukhopadhya Vs. Aghore Nath Mukhopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal18
Pigot and Macpherson, JJ. 1. These are appeals from an appellate decree. The plaintiff and the defend-ants are the sons of Kashi Nath Mukhopadhya, who died in 1280. From 1280 to 1289 the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were managers of the family. Plaintiff alleges that in 1287 and in 1289 he raised money to pay certain necessary family expenses, including Government revenue and municipal taxes. This money he says he raised on promissory notes, two made in Assar 1287 and one in Assar 1289; the aggregate amount of them is stated in the plaint at Rs. 400, one of those in Assar 1287 being in favour of plaintiff's wife, Mukshoda : the other two being in favour of Durga Das, her uncle.2. The holders of these notes sued the plaintiff on them in 1888 and obtained three decrees against him for the amount of the notes, interest and costs, being the sums mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, amounting in the aggregate to Rs. 1,081-12-0.3. The plaintiff then brought this suit, claiming from each...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›