Kolkata Court November 1896 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.
Upendra Chunder Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Kallinath Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal212
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, respondent, to recover khas possession of his share in certain lands on the allegation that the principal defendants, who alleged that they were in possession of the same as purchasers of the jote rights of the former tenants thereof, had no right to remain on the land, the alleged jotes not being transferable, and that as the plaintiff's co-sharers have not joined with them in the suit, they are made defendants.2. The co-sharer defendants did not enter appearance, but the principal defendants defended the action on various allegations of which it is necessary now to notice only one, namely, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover khas possession, as the original tenants were still in possession. This objection led to an issue being raised in the first Court, which was the seventh issue in the case. Both the Courts below have found for the plaintiff upon that issue, and they have accordingly g...
Jatra Mohun Sen Vs. Aukhil Chandra Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal334
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. The provisions of Section 37 of Act XI of 1859 are intended as a safeguard for the realization of Government revenue, and are intended to prevent any proprietor for the time being from so incumbering the estate, and thereby reducing its value, as to diminish the security afforded by the estate for the realization of Government revenue. The right in question attaches to the purchaser or purchasers at a sale for arrears of Government revenue, whenever what is sold is an entire estate, as distinguished from a share of an estate which may under certain circumstances be in the first instance brought to sale for arrears of Government revenue due from the sharer in whose name it is recorded; hut the law does not require that, in order to exercise the right to avoid incumbrances, the purchasers, when there are more than one, should all unite in a body to bring a suit or take other steps necessary for the purpose. Of course when some only of several purchasers seek to...
Clive Jute Mills Co., Ld. Vs. Ebrahim Arab
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal177
Sale, J.1. (after stating the facts as above, continued).--The next question is as to the damages recoverable by the plaintiff company. It seems that on the defendant cancelling his contracts and declining to take delivery of the goods, which in accordance with his directions had been marked and loaded in boats and despatched from the mill, the plaintiffs after notice to the defendant proceeded to resell the goods, and they claim by way of damages the difference in the prices of the goods calculated at the contract rates and at the rates at which they were resold.2. The question is whether the plaintiffs have adopted the true measure of damages, or whether, on the other hand, the plaintiffs ought not to have claimed an amount represented by the difference between the contract prices of the goods and the prices calculated at the market rates at the date of breach.3. It is fair to say that this question is not one which is raised in the written statement of the defendant, and indeed the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›