Kolkata Court June 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.
Gonesh Pershad Vs. Fazul Emam Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal857
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. The questions of fact, which were raised in this case in the Court below, have not been argued before us. So it remains for us to determine only questions of law, which depend upon whether effect should be given to the purchase by the plaintiff or to the purchase by the defendant. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the purpose of determining those questions, are as follow:The plaintiff brought a suit on a mortgage and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree, the property was sold to the respondent before us for a sum of Rs. 725. An application was made by the judgment-debtor to set aside the sale. That application was refused, and the sale was confirmed. Subsequently another application was made by way of review, and eventually the sale was set aside by the first Court. It would follow, therefore, that if matters rested there, the judgment-creditor would have been entitled to proceed to sell the property. But an appeal was preferred to this...
Harkant Sen Vs. Biraj Mohan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal876
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Jenkins, J.1. This appeal is brought from an order refusing an application for execution on the ground that it was barred by lapse of time. A suit was brought against the present defendant for Rs. 4,472-11-0, and a decree was, on the 30th of November 1891, obtained for Rs. 1,207. The plaintiff appealed as to the balance of his claim; but his appeal was disallowed on the 1st of June 1892 by the District Court, and on the 31st of May 1894 by the High Court. On the 1st of June 1895, the present appellant, who claims under the original decree-holder, applied to execute the decree for Rs. 1,207; this being the first application made for that purpose. The defendant met the application with the objection that the decree was barred by lapse of time, and his objection has been sustained in both the lower Courts. This application has, under these circumstances, been brought in the High Court, and the only point argued before us and calling for our decision is whether ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›