Kolkata Court August 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.
Abdun Nasir and anr. Vs. Rasulan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal385
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This suit was brought to partition property which had belonged to Budur-uddin, who died on the 14th of June 1883.2. A prior suit had been brought on the 17th of April 1884, by the plaintiff No. 1 against the first defendant to obtain joint possession of the property with her, and that suit was decreed on the 24th of March 1884. In that suit a schedule of the property, joint possession of which was claimed by him, was filed by the plaintiff, and that schedule did not include, either expressly or by implication, a plot of 6 bighas and 2 cottahs of land which formed part of Buduruddin's estate, and which plot is the subject matter of this appeal.3. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the plaintiffs' suit as to the whole of the property left by Buduruddin except the plot in question, and has dismissed the suit so far as it claims a share of that plot by partition, on the ground that, as the plaintiff No. 1 did not claim joint possession of it in the...
Balkishen Das and ors. Vs. Bedmati Koer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal388
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The appellants, who are the purchasers of a decree, contend that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that execution was time-barred under Article 179 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act.2. In January 1885 Peary Lall Das and two others obtained the decree in question against Dulari Koer. The decree was obtained on a mortgage-bond for a sum of Rs. 16,603, and the amount now said to be due is something over Rs. 23,000. The execution proceedings have been taken in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur, which is the Court which passed the decree.3. On the 19th December 1887 Bhokola Das applied, under Section 2321 of the Civil Procedure Code, to execute the decree, claiming as transferee under a written assignment from the decree-holders. The notices prescribed by that section were issued, and, no opposition being offered, the Subordinate Judge directed, on the 27th January 1888, that Bhokola's name should be substituted as de...
The Queen-empress Vs. Krishna Gobinda Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal358
ORDERPigot and Rampini, JJ.1. For the reasons given by the Sessions Judge, and having regard to the authority cited by him, in his letter, we set aside the conviction and sentence pronounced by the Deputy Magistrate of Netrokona on the 16th of May 1892, and we direct that the fine, if paid, or any portion thereof which may have been paid, be refunded....
The Queen-empress Vs. Gopal Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal316
1. For the reasons mentioned in the letter of the Sessions judge we set aside the conviction and sentence, and order that the fine if paid, or any part of it which may have been paid, be refunded....
Krishna Roy Vs. Jawahir Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal260
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the suit is barred under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff-appellant to recover possession of a one-gunda share out of a nine-and-half-gundas share which has been formed into estate No. 2218 of the Collector's towzi, on the allegation that the plaintiff' had obtained a decree for a one-gunda share out of the share possessed by the defendants in the estate out of which the said estate No. 2218 has been formed and which was No. 831 in the Collector's towzi; that before the decree obtained by the plaintiff could be executed, the parent estate No. 831 had been partitioned by the Collector and the defendants' share in the same had been formed into a separate estate, No. 2218; and that the plaintiff's prayer for execution of the decree obtained by him was opposed by the defendants, on the ground that he could not obtain the relief that he asked for in execu...
Saheb Lal and anr. Vs. Sheo Pershad Singh and anr. and Rajkumar Lal an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal453
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.1. In the two suits out of which the present appeals arise the plaintiffs, who are members of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, seek to recover a share in two properties named Adai and Udaibigha, on the allegations that these properties were joint family properties, that they were wrongfully sold in execution of a decree obtained against certain members of the family on the basis of a bond executed by those members for a personal debt for which those members only were liable, and that they were accordingly dispossessed from those properties, on the 4th August 1877, and on the 18th July and the 25th September 1878, by the principal defendants, who are the purchasers of the properties at the Court sales. The genealogy of the family, which is admitted, is given in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiffs, Saheb Lal and Gharib Chand, are the grandsons of one Meher Chand Sahu, who died in March 1872. The plaintiff's own father, Raghu Nath Lal,...
Surya NaraIn Singh Vs. Jogendra NaraIn Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal360
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.1. This is a suit upon a mortgage. The appellant is the mortgagee who, in the lower Court, obtained a decree. The chief question in the appeal before us is as to the amount awarded by the decree in respect of interest on the mortgage-debt. The mortgage-deed is dated the 19th Pous 1289; the amount of the mortgage loan is Rs. 60,000; the date fixed for the repayment of the mortgage money is the 9th Jaistha 1295, and the rate of interest stipulated for is 1 per cent. per mensem, with a provision for compound interest in case of default in the payment of interest, as provided by the deed.2. The provision relating to the payment of the interest, or, in default, of compound interest, is as follows: [After reading the portion of the bond set out, (ante p. 361), their Lordships continued] : The amount claimed by the plaintiff as due at the date of the institution of the suit for principal and interest, after allowing for certain payments made, was Rs. 1,29,973-3, and for ...
Hridoy Nath Shaha and anr. Vs. Mohobutnessa Bibee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal285
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. These six appeals arise out of six rent-suits that were brought by the plaintiffs under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiffs are some of the co-sharers in a certain estate, another co-sharer being a lady of the name of Tamizunissa. It is admitted and found as a fact by both the Lower Courts that in the year 1818 a private arrangement was come to amongst the co-sharers, by which certain lands were assigned to the various co-sharers in severalty, other lands remaining ijmali or joint as before. Among the lands assigned to Tamizunissa in her share were those held by the tenant-defendants in these six suits, and it is admitted that from that year these tenant-defendants began to pay their entire rents to Tamizunissa. In 1858 Tamizunissa leased out her share in the estate in patni, and although the lease merely purports to demise Tamizunissa's undivided share in the estate, and contains no reference to the private partition or to the lands thereby assigne...
Yeo Swee Choon Alias Bah U Vs. the Chartered Bank of India Australia a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal605
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. In this case we think that the view taken by the Judicial Commissioner in the judgment given by him in the Special Court is right on both points. The first point which has been referred to us and upon which our opinion is required is, whether this matter is a criminal case within the meaning of Section 69 of the Lower Burma Courts Act. The learned Recorder thinks it is not a criminal case, but a civil one. The Judicial Commissioner thinks it is a criminal case, and, as I said just now, we agree with the Judicial Commissioner. The punishment which can be awarded under this section is a punishment for something which the person to be punished has done, and is not in any way an imprisonment to which he is subjected in order to compel him to do something in the future; and that brings the case within the definition of a criminal case which is to be found in the various cases which have been cited before us by Sir Griffith Evans, which were O'Shea v. O'Shea an...
Abdul HosseIn Vs. Fazilun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal255
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the appellant's application of the 7th March 1887 had the effect of keeping the decree alive. Both Courts have held that it had not, and, we think, rightly. The application in question was put in on the day on which some of the properties were to he sold under the proclamation issued. By it the appellant asked the Subordinate Judge to remove the attachment from a portion of the property which was to be sold, to continue the attachment on the remaining portion, and to strike the case off the file. We cannot regard this as an application to take a step in aid of the execution of the decree. It was rather an application which had the effect temporarily at all events of retarding the execution. Without going so far as to say that no case could occur in which an application which had that effect might not still he in furtherance of execution at some future period, we may say that this was not the case here. There is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »