Kolkata Court May 1895 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.
Janardhsn Ganguli and ors. Vs. Kali Kristo Thakur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal393
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is a rule calling upon the other side to show cause why the order of the Munsif of Barisal, setting aside a sale under Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure, should not be set aside, and the grounds upon which the petitioner contends that that order should be set asides are two: First, that Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to this case, as the sale here was a sale of a tenure for arrears of rent under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act; and, second, that the order of the Munsif is wrong, because it was made without any notice to the auction-purchaser, and without taking any evidence to show that the petitioner had any interest in the immoveable property that has been sold.2. In support of the first ground the learned Vakil for the petitioner relied upon the words 'sold under this chapter' in Section 310A as showing that the application of that section is limited to sales held under chapter XIX of the Code of ...
Debi Dial Sahu Vs. Moharaj Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal764
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. The decree in this case was passed by the Munsif of Daltongunj for money. An application was made by the decree-holder to have it sent for execution by the Munsif of Aurungabad by sale of immoveable properties within the jurisdiction of that Court. The Munsif of Daltongunj, in disregard of the last clause of Section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure, sent this decree for execution direct to the Munsif of Aurungabad, instead of through the District Court of Gya. An objection was at once made by the judgment-debtor that, inasmuch as the authority of the District Court of Gya was wanting, the Munsif of Aurungabad was without jurisdiction. The Munsif disallowed this objection; but the District Judge on appeal held that it was fatal, and he accordingly disallowed the proceedings in execution. The decree-holder has appealed.2. This point is not free from difficulty, for it involves the determination of, whether this was only an irregularity, or a matter affecting th...
Tara Lal Singh Deo Bahadur Vs. Sasi Bhushun Raha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal494
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.1. In each of the three suits out of which these appeals arise, the plaintiff sues the defendant No. 1 for rent due under a lease granted by the plaintiff to that defendant. In each case the lease is admitted, the rent is admittedly due, and the only defence is that the defendant No. 1 has assigned to the defendants No. 2 the lease under which the rent has become due.2. In each case the defendants No. 2 were added as parties defendant, apparently at their request. The Munsif made in each case a decree against the defendants No. 2 alone. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has held (in one judgment disposing of all the cases) that the defendant No. 1 is liable: and has made a decree against him, letting the decree against the defendants No. 2 stand as against them. Defendant No. 1 appeals.3. In each case kabuliyats only are put in evidence : we are told that no pottahs were executed.4. In appeal 249 the suit is for rent for one year, from Assin 16th, 1298, to Assin 15t...
Ledlie Vs. Ledlie
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal544
Sale, J.1. I think the petitioner is entitled to the relief, which she seeks in this suit, and the marriage must be declared to be dissolved. A decree, dated 14th April 1891, was obtained by the petitioner in the former proceedings instituted by her for judicial separation, and is sufficient evidence, in the first place, of the marriage of the parties; and, in the second place, of the cruelty, on which the decree is founded. There is further evidence now of the identity of the parties to the present proceedings, and, further, of the fact that the respondent is now living in adultery with a woman, who is not the petitioner. Under these circumstances the petitioner has sufficiently made out a case for dissolution of marriage. There must be a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage, with costs to be taxed on scale No. 1....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›