Kolkata Court May 1957 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.
Kanailal Mookerjee Vs. Kali Mohan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal645,62CWN136
S.R. Das Gupta, J. 1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether in the events which happened the surety has been discharged.2. The appellant before us instituted a suit against one Lal Mohan Chatterjee for the recovery of Rs. 3100/-, Immediately after the Institution of the said suit he caused an attachment to be made on the undivided half share in the dwelling house of the said defendant under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil P. C. The said attachment was removed upon the respondent in this appeal having stood surety for Rs. 3535-13 for the payment of claim and costs of the appellant. The bond of surety was executed on 2-1-1951. The operative part of the said bond provides that the said surety Would remain liable for the payment of Rs 3535-13 and if the said sum is not realised from the defendant, then the Court would realise the same from his movable and immovable property or from his person. It should be noted that the said bond was given in favour of the Court. Thereafter, on 24-7...
Mulukh Raj Sharma Vs. Raj NaraIn Sharma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Cal687,61CWN621
Lahiri, J. 1. In this case the only question that requires consideration Is whether the District Judge of Howrah against whose order this Rule has been obtained was right in holding that no appeal lay against the order of the District Delegate Howrah, to Revocation Case No. 209 of 1954. The factswhich are relevant for the purpose of this Rule are these:2. On the death of one Saritaram Sharma, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 named Rajnarain Sharma and Shyamdeo Sharma obtained a succession certificate for a debt due to the deceased amounting to Rs. 5913/15/6. On 8th of September 1953, the petitioner who describes himself as the brother of the deceased Santaram filed an application for revocation of the succession certificate granted in favour of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 but he did not proceed with that application and it was accordingly rejected. On 1st December 1954, the petitioner filed another application for revocation of the succession certificate in favour of opposite parties No...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›