Kolkata Court March 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.
P.G. Hill Vs. Administrator-general of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal506
Sale, J.1. The plaintiff in this case claims the balance of a fund which belonged to his wife, and which is now in the hands of the defendant, the Administrator-General, as representing her estate, and he bases his claim upon his right of succession under the English law. It appears that the plaintiff and his wife were married in British India in 1872. The plaintiff then had, and still has, an English domicile. The wife was entitled to a certain fund, subject only to a life-interest therein on the part of her mother. In 1879 the wife died, leaving as her next of kin her mother and her brother, both of whom are now dead, and their estates are represented in this suit. Subsequent to the death of the mother payment of the fund was made to the defendant, the Administrator-General, as representing the estate of the wife. On the plaintiff preferring his claim to the entirety of the fund the Administrator-General made a payment to him on account of and in part satisfaction of a half share, bu...
Chundrabati Koeri Vs. Monji Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal512
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. We think this appeal must fail; in the first place, because the person who has been appointed manager to the estate of the lunatic, Babu Isri Pershad, under the provisions of Act XXXV of 1858, has not been made a party respondent in this appeal; and in the second place, because there is no authority for the contention that a married daughter living with her husband and separate from her father is entitled to a separate maintenance being allowed to her against her lather's estate, when that estate is taken charge of by the Court under the provisions of the said Act. Section 13 of the Act provides for the maintenance of the lunatic and of his family. The word 'family' we understand to include persons living with the lunatic as members of his family, that is to say, persons actually depending upon him for their maintenance. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed, but we make no order as to costs....
Premmoyi Choudhrani and anr. Vs. Preonath Dhur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal636
Macpherson, J.1. In our opinion this order is wrong. It is true that Iswari Dassi had only a life-interest in her husband's estate, and that on her death the property would not go to her heirs, but the heirs of her husband.2. It is, however, settled law that a Hindu widow, although she takes in some respects only a qualified interest in her husband's estate, fully represents that estate, and that the succeeding heirs would be bound by a decree properly and fairly obtained against the widow; see Katama Natchiar v. The Rajah of Shivagunga 9 Moo. I.A. 539, and Hari Nath Chatterjee v. Mothurmohun Goswami I.L.R. 21 Cal. 8. As the succeeding heirs would be bound by a decree properly obtained against the widow, so they would have the benefit of any decree obtained by her. Section 361 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the death of the plaintiff shall not cause a suit to abate if the right to sue survives.3. We think it is impossible to say that the right to sue in this case does not...
Pahar Khan and ors. Vs. Troyluckho Nath Mozumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal641
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Rampini, J.1. This is a suit for the setting aside of a sale held in execution of a certificate decree. The Court of First Instance held that, as regards the setting aside of the certificate, the suit was barred by limitation. It further held that there was an unsatisfied arrear (though a small one) due at the time of the sale, and that therefore the case did not come within the purview of the ruling in the case of Gujraj Sahai v. Secretary of State I.L.R. 17 Cal. 414 but rather within the ruling in the case of Sadhusaran Singh v. Panchdeo Lal I.L.R. 14 Cal. 1, and accordingly dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court set aside the decree of the Court of First Instance, on the ground that the provisions of Section 2 of the Bengal Act VII of 1868 do not bar the institution of a regular suit to set aside a sale, like the one in question, inasmuch as in the case of Gujraj Sahai v. Secretary of State I.L.R. 17 Cal. 414 the learned Judges who decided that cas...
Ashruf Ali Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Net Lal Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal682
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. On the 2nd June 1893 the respondents in this appeal obtained a decree against the appellants and others upon certain mortgage bonds under the provisions of Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act; the 1st July 1893 being fixed as the data on which the money found to be due was to be paid. On the 29th July 1893 the decree was made absolute. On 5th August an order was made for the sale of the mortgaged properties, and the sale was advertised, but on 9th September the sale was stayed on payment of a portion of the amount of the decree and the execution proceedings remained in abeyance. On the 27th June 1894 the respondents applied to continue the execution proceedings and to bring the properties to sale. A fresh proclamation was issued fixing 6th August for the sale, and on the following day the properties were put up to sale, and were (with the permission of the Court) purchased by the decree-holders. Within thirty days of the sale the appell...
Net Lall Sahoo and ors. Vs. Sheikh Kareem Bux and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal686
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. The respondents in this case are two out of several judgment-debtors against whom a mortgage decree was made on 2nd June 1893. In that decree the judgment-debtor No. 8 was one Mussummat Makhduman, nika wife of Halim Chowdhry, deceased, and Nos. 9 and 10 were the two respondents, Karim Buksh and Mussummat Jaigia, who were described as minors under the guardianship of the said Mussummat Makhduman.2. The decree having been made absolute on 29th July 1893, an order for sale of the mortgaged properties was made on 5th August, but on payment of part of the money due the sale was stayed, and the execution of the decree remained in abeyance. The balance of the decretal money not having been paid, the decree-holder on 25th June 1894 made a fresh application for sale, the judgment-debtors being described as in the decree and the former application. Meanwhile on 24th November 1893 Mussummat Makhduman had died, and no steps were taken either to substitute her legal re...
Tarak Chunder Sen Vs. Gyanada Sundari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal817
W. Combe Petheram, C.J. and Rampini, J.1. The question we have to consider is whether an application made by the decree-holder, the respondent in this appeal, on the 16th of March 1891, was an application in accordance with law to the proper Court to take some step in aid of the execution of the decree. The application was contained in a petition, the translation of which has been made by the pleader for the appellant and verified by Mr. Justice Rampini. It is as follows:Execution case No. 168 of 1890. Before Babu Parbutty Kumar Mitra, Ray Bahadur, Subordinate Judge, Zilla Dacca. Shoshi Kumar Sarkar, decree-holder v. Taruck Chunder Sen, judgment-debtor. Petition on behalf of decree-holder to the following effect.In the above execution case order has been passed upon the Nazir to proceed and attach the moveable properties of the judgment-debtor. But the judgment-debtor, having become aware of this, has removed his properties. Besides no person on behalf of the decree-holder has arrived ...
In Re: Indra Chandra Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal580
Pigot, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by one of the learned Judges sitting on the Original Side of the Court. The order is made in the goods of Kumar Indra Chandra Singh, deceased. Neither in the notice of motion upon which the order was made, nor in the order itself, does it expressly appear that the order was in fact made under Section 90 of the Probate and Administration Act. But this omission need not be dwelt on. In the argument of the appeal the respondent supported the order as made under Section 90, and there is no doubt that the order was really applied for and was made, or supposed to be made, under the authority of that section. Kumar Indra Chandra Singh died on the 14th May 1894, leaving a very large property. By his Will made and published on the 13th May 1894 he made the Administrator-General of Bengal executor. The Will is as follows:Written (or executed) by Sri Indra Chunder Singh, son of Rajah Issur Chundra Singh, deceased, residing at No. 1, Harrington Stre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›