Kolkata Court February 1894 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.
Abdul Mazumdar and ors. Vs. Mahomed Gazi Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal605
Trevelyan and Banerjee, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration of their title to, and for confirmation of their possession of, certain immoveable property after setting aside an ex parte decree and a sale in execution thereof, on the ground of the decree and the execution sale being fraudulent. The defence, which we need not here consider in detail, consisted in a denial of the plaintiffs' allegations. The first Court found that the decree in question was fraudulently obtained by the principal defendant against the plaintiffs, and that the sale in execution of such decree was also fraudulent and invalid, and it accordingly decreed the suit.2. On appeal by the defendant the Lower Appellate Court, without going into the merits of the case, has determined the suit as not 'maintainable,' relying upon the cases of Mohendro Narain Chaturaj v. Gopal Mondul I.L.R. 17 Cal. 769 and Jagan Nath Gorai v. Watson I.L.R. 19 Cal. 341.3. In second appeal it is content...
Mohabir Prosad Singh and ors. Vs. Adhikari Kunwar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal473
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that in this case there is no appeal from this order, and that this appeal, consequently, must be dismissed.2. The law is correctly laid down in the judgment of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Markby which is to be found in The Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. Oriental Gas Company 8 B.L.R. 433 (452). The Chief Justice there says (p. 452 of the report): 'We think that 'judgment' in Clause 15 means a decision which affects the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability, It may be either final, or preliminary or interlocutory, the difference between them being that a final judgment determines the whole cause or suit, and a preliminary or interlocutory judgment determines only a part of it, leaving other matters to be determined.'3. That being the law, the question is, whether a refusal to exercise the discretion given by Section 608 to a Judge or Bench of this Court to order security for costs is a decision w...
Bhola Kaiburto and anr. Vs. Gourhari Kaiburto
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal233
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The terms of Regulation XI of 1825, Section 4 Clause (1), are in opinion clear; the plaintiff who has an occupancy right in a jote is entitled to bold the lands in dispute as an increment to that jote. We therefore agree in the view of the law expressed in the cases of Gobind Monee Debia v. Dinobundhoo Shaha 15 W.R. 87, Attimoollah v. Saheboollah 15 W.R. 149, and Bhagabat Prasad Sing v. Durg Bijai Sing 8 B.L.R. 73 : 16 W.R. 95. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›