Kolkata Court May 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.
Taqui Jan, Minor by His Mother Banu Begum Vs. Obaidulla Alias Nanhe Na ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal866
Trevelyan and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This suit was brought on behalf of a person who was alleged to be a minor. The defendant in his written statement contended that the plaintiff' was not a minor but in reality had attained his full age. The learned Judge in the Court below tried only the issue as to whether the defendant's plea was true, viz., that the plaintiff was not a minor; and on finding against the plaintiff on that issue dismissed the whole suit. We have not gone into the question whether as a matter of fact the plaintiff was a minor, as having regard to the view which we take as to what course the learned Judge ought to have adopted the learned pleader for the appellant has not contested that finding. We think that the proper penalty for this mistake on the part of the plaintiff, if it was a mistake, ought not to be the loss of the whole suit but the payment of such costs as would properly indemnify the other side. The proper course to be pursued, where the opposite party contends...
Ahmud Bepari and anr. Vs. Tohi Mahomed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1894
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.511
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of 6 kanis, of chur land which the plaintiffs-appellants allege consist of 1 1/2 kanis of land originally settled with them by the proprietor on the 25th Aghran 1293 and of alluvial accretions to the same. They say that they had been in possession of this land down to 1297; that they were dispossessed by the defendants; that they brought a suit against the defendants tinder Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act; and that that suit having been dismissed they are obliged to bring the present suit to establish their right to the land.2. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 who contested the suit, denied the plaintiffs' right and alleged that the land appertained to their jote.3. The first Court gave the plaintiffs a decree; but on appeal by the defendants the lower appellate Court has reversed that decree, holding that the plaintiffs have failed to make out their title to the 1 1/2 kanis of land originally leased to them, as the dastak,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›