Kolkata Court May 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.
Muhammad Mumtaz Ali Khan Vs. Sheoruttangir and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal934
R. Couch, J.1. The suit in this case was brought by the appellant against Manjgir Gushain, since deceased, of whom the respondents are the heirs, in the Court of the District Judge of Fyzabad. The plaint stated that the village Katra was the ancestral property of the plaintiff; that on the 31st May 1871 the defendant, who was a lessee of a 12 annas share of the village from the Court of Wards, instituted in the Settlement Court a wrong claim for birt tenure against the plaintiff, who was then a minor about six years old; that the plaintiff's estate was in charge of the Court of Wards, and he was not made a party to the suit; that on the 9th July 1872 Thakur Parshad, agent, on the allegation that he was agent, made a verbal admission of the claim and got a decree of birt tenure passed in favour of the defendant, under which the defendant wrongfully held possession of the village. It was alleged that Thakur Parshad was not competent to make an admission of the claim, that the defendant w...
Mahabir Pershad and anr. Vs. Adhikari Koer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal942
Macnaghten, J.1. Their Lordships are of opinion that there is no foundation for this appeal. They entirely agree with the judgment of the Court below. They think that the possession has been adverse since the year 1843, the date of Dipa Koer's death; and they will, therefore, humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Ritu Roy and anr. Vs. Goberdhan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal962
Beverley and Jenkins, JJ.1. In July 1890 the plaintiff, in order to defeat his creditors, executed a colorable conveyance of 3 bighas 9 cottahs of land in favour of the defendant (second party), but he alleges that he himself retained possession both of the land and of the deed. In March 1891 the defendant (second party) conveyed 3 bighas 2 cottahs of the land in question to the defendants (first party).2. In March 1892 the defendants (first party) forcibly reaped the crop on the land, and in a criminal proceeding that followed, were declared to be in possession of the land. Plaintiff accordingly brought this suit to recover possession. The first Court found that the transaction of 1890 was a real one and dismissed the suit.3. The Lower Appellate Court has found that the sale to defendant (second party) in 1890 was a fictitious transaction in which no consideration passed; that by virtue of it defendant (second party) was successful in preferring a claim to the land which bad been atta...
Samsar Khan and ors. Vs. LochIn Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal854
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. In these cases the zemindar sued to recover damages from the defendants, his raiyats, on account of certain trees cut down and appropriated by them. The trees in question appear, upon the finding of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, to be 'agachha,' or valueless trees : trees which are generally-used, for the purposes of fuel. They have been shown to have grown on the lands of the raiyats after they were inducted into possession. The evidence on the part of the landlord, was, as set out in the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge, to the effect that there was a custom in the village that the raiyats could, when they required firewood for the purposes of cremation, and on occasions of marriage feasts, and the like, appropriate such trees with the permission of the barua, the village headman, who represented the zemindar; and that when such permission was asked for, nothing had to be paid by the raiyats. It does not appear upon the findings of the Judge of th...
Anwar Ali Vs. Jaffer Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal827
Beverley and Jenkins, JJ.1. In this case a preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal lies to this Court.2. The appeal to the Lower Appellate Court was dismissed for default of prosecution. The order, is in these words: ''The appellant does not appear, and the only pleader who can be found, says that he has no instructions; ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs and the usual interest.' It has been recently held by this Court in the case of Jagarnath Singh v. Budhan I.L.R. 23 Cal. 115 that an order to this effect is not a 'decree' within the definition in Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that no second appeal will lie therefrom. We have also been referred to Mansab Ali v. Nihal Chand I.L.R. 15 All. 359, which is the most recent of several decisions of the Allahabad Court on this subject, and is to the same 29] effect as the case just referred to. Our attention has been drawn by the learned pleader for the appellant to the case of Ram Chandra Pandur...
In Re: Basharat Ali Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal133
Macpherson and Hill, JJ.1. We have read the affidavits and have heard learned Counsel on both sides, and are clearly of opinion that this is not a matter in which we should interfere even if we could properly do so.2. It appears that Basharat Ali Chowdhry, a resident of the Tipperah District, was many years ago declared under Act XXXV of 1858 to be a lunatic by the Chief Civil Court of that District. When the occurrences complained of took place, Mr. Sandys was the appointed manager of his estate, and the petitioner, Syud Mahomed Hashira was the appointed guardian of Ids person. The latter under the Act was charged with the care and maintenance of the lunatic ward, but unquestionably he was in the performance of his duties in complete subordination to the Civil Court, which appointed him and could remove him for sufficient cause.3. On the 18th November 1894 the petitioner and the lunatic were allowed to leave the Tipperah District, for a 4 months' tour in the Upper Provinces, the objec...
Jonardan Dobey Vs. Ramdhone Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal738
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The question raised in this reference is whether a decree passed in a suit to which the defendant has appeared and defended, but was not present or represented at the concluding portion of the hearing is an ex parte decree within the meaning of Section 108 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. I do not think the point by any means clear, but as the words used in the section are capable of the wider meaning, I do not feel constrained to differ from the rest of the Court upon it and agree to the answer to the question which they propose to give.O'Kinealy, J.3. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit in the Court below against three defendants for possession of land, the plaint was filed, and the 10th of August fixed to settle the issues. On this day one only of the defendants appeared and asked for time and got twenty-seven days. Time was granted, and the Court directed the parties to appear on the 6th September. I take the order from the order sheet. None of the def...
Kunjo Behary Singh Vs. Madhub Chundra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal884
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. My answer to the question referred to this Bench is that no second appeal lies from a suit for mesne profits, where the value of the subject-matter in dispute is less than Rs. 500. In other words, I think that such a suit is cognizable in Courts of Small Causes and is within the provisions of Section 586 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. By the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887), Section 15, jurisdiction is given to Courts of Small Causes to take cognizance of all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed Rs. 500, except such suits as are specified in the. second schedule of the Act; and the question to be determined by this Bench is whether a suit for mesne profits is one of the suits specified in the schedule. A suit for mesne profits is not mentioned in the schedule by name, but it is said that it is included in the description of a suit in the latter part of Article 31 of the schedule. That description is 'a suit for the profits o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›