Skip to content

Kolkata Court June 1897 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.

Jun 23 1897

Golam Gaffar Mandal and ors. Vs. Goljan Bibi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-23-1897

Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal109

Maclean, C.J.1. In my opinion these appeals are not susceptible of serious argument. It is clear that the period of limitation began to run from the date of the decree, and the date of the decree was the 14th September 1892. It is quite immaterial on what date the Judge signed it. The appeals must be dismissed but without costs, as the respondents have not appeared.Banerjee, J.2. I am of the same opinion. The question for decision in this case is what is the meaning of the words 'date of the decree' in Clause 1 of Article 179 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. Do they mean the date that the decree is by Section 205, of the Code of Civil Procedure directed to bear, or do they mean the date on which the Judge actually puts his signature to the decree? I am of opinion that they must mean the date the decree is directed to bear under Section 205, and that is the date on which the judgment was pronounced: and if time runs from that date, this application was clearly out of time. ...


Jun 18 1897

Bishen Perkash NaraIn Singh Vs. Munni Ram Chowdhry

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-18-1897

Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal878

Trevelyan and Stevens, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order admitting a review. The eases in which such an appeal is possible are mentioned in Section 629 of the Civil Procedure Code, and there is the express authority of the Bombay High Court in the case of the Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Company v. S. S. 'Zuari' I.L.R. 12 Bom. 171 that an appeal will not directly lie except on the grounds mentioned in that section. Section 629 of the Civil Procedure Code says that the objection may be made either by way of appeal against the order granting the application, or may be taken in any appeal against the final decree. That would show that in either case, that is, either in an appeal against the order or in an appeal from the final decree only, an appeal will lie on those particular grounds and no others. There are two authorities of this Court in Har Nandan Sahai v. Behari Singh I.L.R. 22 Cal. 3 and Baroda Churn Ghose v. Gobind Proshad Ternary I.L.R. 22 Cal. 984 which show that the ...


Jun 17 1897

Kali Kishore Deb Sarkar Vs. Guru Prosad Sukul

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-17-1897

Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal99

Macpherson and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The appellant having purchased a share of a taluk at an execution sale failed to pay the balance of the purchase-money, and there was a resale at which the price realised was much smaller than the price realized at the first sale. Both Courts have held that the appellant must make good the deficiency according to the terms of Section 293 of the Procedure Code. The decree-holder is the person seeking to enforce the payment and the respondent in the appeal.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies, but there is a current of decisions in this Court dating from 1865, showing that an appeal does lie, and we feel bound to follow them. The cases are Sree Narain Mitter v. Mahatab Chand (1865) 3 W. R. 3; Sooruj Buksh Singh v. Sree Kishen Doss (1866) 6 W. R. Mis. 126; Joobraj Singh v. Gour Buksh Lall (1867) 7 W. R. 110; and Baij Nath Sahai v. Moheep Narain Singh (1889) I.L.R. 16 Cal. 535. No decision to the contrary has been cited, although the quest...


Jun 07 1897

Kali Prosanno Ghose Vs. Rajani Kant Chatterjee and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-07-1897

Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal141

Maclean, C.J.1. In this case there was a litigation between the plaintiff and the defendants. The matter was referred to arbitration. The questions submitted to arbitration were inquired into by the arbitrator, who made his award. The defendants objected to that award, and applied to have it set aside. The matter came before the Subordinate Judge who heard the parties and rejected the application to set aside the award, and decided practically in favour of the plaintiff and made a decree in accordance with the award. The defendants, dissatisfied with the ruling of the Subordinate Judge, presented, an appeal to the District Judge. Upon the matter coming before the District Judge objection was taken by the plaintiff, the then respondent, that, having regard to the last sentence of Section 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal lay from the decree of the Subordinate Judge. Those words are these: 'No appeal shall lie from such a decree except in so far as the decree is in excess of,...


Jun 04 1897

Debendra Nath Mullick Vs. PulIn Behary Mullick and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-04-1897

Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal763

Ameer Ali, J.1. The facts of this case are sufficiently set out in my preliminary judgment I.L.R. 23 Cal. 714. It is enough to say that the Registrar has found upon the inquiry directed that the expenses of and incidental to the plaintiff's assignment amounted to Rs. 758-4-0. His report is dated the 19th of December 1896. On the 8th of May last an application was made to fix a day for further hearing and final judgment. The case was fixed for the 22nd of May, but was adjourned by consent to the 29th of May. On the 27th the defendant deposited a further sum of Rs. 65, odd annas. Mr. Sinha on behalf of the plaintiff contends that the sum deposited by the defendant on the 10th of April 1896 was insufficient, inasmuch as he had deposited only Rs. 750 over and above the consideration paid by the plaintiff for his assignment, whereas the expenses are now found to have been Rs. 758-4-0, and that therefore he (the defendant) is not entitled to the benefit of Section 135 of the Transfer of Prop...


Jun 03 1897

Gour Sunder Pershad Singh and anr. Vs. Koowar Singh

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-03-1897

Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal887

Trevelyan and Wilkins, JJ.1. The plaintiffs are purchasers at a sale for arrears of Government revenue. They sue for arrears of rent. The defendants claim that they have paid their rent to persons to whom that rent was assigned by the former proprietor.2. The sole question before us is whether having regard to the terms of Section 37 of Act XI of 1859 the plaintiff is entitled to disregard the arrangement made with the former proprietor.3. It has been argued before us that, although the plaintiff has purchased what upon a partition by the Collector has become a separate estate bearing a separte towji number, and charged with a separate amount of Government revenue, he is not the purchaser of an ' entire estate ' within the meaning of Section 37, and also that he only acquires the estate free from the incumbrances which may have been imposed upon it after the separation. We fully agree with the learned District Judge's decision on both these questions and with the reasons which he has g...


Jun 01 1897

Doyamoyi Dasi Vs. Sarat Chunder Mojumdar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jun-01-1897

Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal175

Maclean, C.J.1. I think that a second appeal lies in this case upon the short ground that the question to be decided is a question between the parties to the suit relating to the execution of the decree and possibly to the satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I arrive at this conclusion upon the ground that a sale has been ordered, the sale has been effected, and effected for the purpose of satisfying the decree. If the sale be held to be bad, that is a question which affects the decree-holder, and affects the judgment-debtor, both of whom are parties to the suit. This is a question between the parties to the suit, and the person claiming here is the judgment-debtor; the decree-holder is made a party to the appeal and also the auction-purchaser. The case, therefore, is within Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and seems to me to come within the principle laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Prosunno Kumar Sanyal ...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial