Kolkata Court January 1876 Judgments

Gouree Lall Singh Vs. Joodhisteer Hajrah and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal360

Mitter, J.1. This is a suit for the reversal of a patni sale under Regulation VIII of 1819. The claim is based upon two grounds, viz., (1) that there was no arrear of rent due from the plaintiff on the day of the sale, the same having been paid to the zemindar two days before the day of sale, and (2) that the notification of sale was not duly published according to Section 8 of Regulation VIII of 1819.2. The lower Court has dismissed the suit. Upon the first point, the lower Court has found that the allegation of payment of rent two days before the day of sale is not true, and that the dakhila produced to establish that payment is not genuine. As regards the publication of the notice of sale, what the lower Court finds is this, that it was first stuck up in the cutcherry of the ijaradar (the mehal having been let out in ijara by the patnidar), but the gomasta of the ijaradar having refused to grant a receipt of the service of the notice to the peon who took it, it was taken down and su...

Thakoor Kapilnath Sahai Vs. the Government

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal142

Phear, J.1. ordered that the appeal should be struck off the file....

Remfry and anr. Vs. Shillingford and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Phear, J.1. I think the Act was only intended to apply to those eases in which the hill itself together with mere lapse of time is sufficient to estahlish for the plaintiff a prima facie right to recover.2. In this case the plaintiff is obliged to allege the occurrence of another fact besides the lapse of time since the making of the bill, namely, that the first instalment has not been paid, which fact is necessary according to the terms of the bill in order to complete the plaintiffs' right to sue. There is no evidence before the Court of this fact, and I do not think the Legislature intended that the summons served in the forms prescribed by Act V of 1866 should have the effect of enabling the plaintiffs' statement of the fact in his petition to prevail without evidence.3. It is argued that the day for the payment of the first instalment being past, it would be incumbent on the defendant to prove payment in answer to any claim for that alone; and that therefore this instalment must b...