Kolkata Court July 1876 Judgments
Hem Chunder Chunder Vs. Prankristo Chunder
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal403
Pontifex, J.1. In this case before 1871 there was a suit for partition of the estate of Ramtonoo Chunder. In that suit Bissonath Chunder was a defendant. By a decree in that suit, dated the 13th of February 1871, the Receiver of the Court was appointed Receiver of the estate, and there was the usual order, restraining the defendants in that suit and persons claiming under them from intermeddling with the estate pending partition, and it was further ordered that quiet possession should be given to the Receiver. Bissonath Chunder has since died, and his representatives have been made parties to the suit.2. Under these circumstances, and while the Receiver is still undischarged, one Denonath Mitter, a judgment-creditor in a suit on a mortgage against Bissonath Chunder, now seeks satisfaction of his decree against Bissonath's share of the property under partition, and finds himself powerless to execute his decree against such share without the assistance of the Court, because the estate is...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Feda HosseIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal432
Markby, J.1. This, it will be observed, is not an application in the form required by Act VI of 1874, and it has been stated that the petition was so drawn expressly in order to raise the question whether the provisions of that Act were binding.2. I may say at once that no case for granting special leave to appeal has been made out.3. An attempt was also made to obtain, upon this petition, a certificate under Act VI of 1874, that a substantial question of law was involved in the case; and I was asked to grant this certificate, should I think that Act to be binding. But it was subsequently admitted that upon this petition, this alternative course could not be pursued.4. The question therefore which remains is, whether the petitioners in spite of Act VI of 1874 have a right of appeal, simply upon the ground that the property is above the value of Rs. 10,000. There is no doubt that the petitioners would have had that right prior to the passing of Act VI of 1874, and the petitioners conten...
Tag this Judgment!Suttya Ghosal Vs. Suttyanund Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal389
Pontifex, J.1. Act IX of 1875 was passed for the purpose of attaining greater certainty respecting the age of majority, but itself causes the uncertainty out of which this application arises. Section 3 of the Act is as follows: 'Every minor of whose person or property a guardian has been or shall be appointed by any Court of Justice, and every minor under the jurisdiction of any Court of Wards, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Succession Act, or in any other enactment, be deemed to have attained his majority when he shall have completed his age of 21 years, and not before.'2. The suit in which this application is made was instituted before 1872, and when the present applicant was a minor under the age of 18 years. She was made a defendant to the suit, which was for partition. She was at the time a married woman, and her husband, who would have been her natural guardian, was appointed by this Court her guardian ad litem. By the decree in the suit it was, amongst o...
Tag this Judgment!Treeporasoondery Dossee Vs. Debendronath Tagore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal45
Pontifex, J.1. This case, which has been argued in the settlement of issues, raises many troublesome and difficult questions.2. Dwarkanath Tagore, who died about the year 1846, left three sons--Debendronath, who is still living and is the principal defendant in this suit; Greendronath, who died in 1854, leaving two sons, Ganendronath, who died in 1869, and Ganendronath, who is a defendant in this suit, and Nogendronath, who died in 1858, without issue, leaving a widow, who is the plaintiff in this suit. Dwarkanath Tagore, by his will made in 1843, appointed a Mr. Gordon and his three sons his executors (all of whom, except Nogendro, proved the will), and, after thereby confirming a certain deed of settlement of the 20th of August 1840, making certain devises and bequests (including a devise of a piece of land and a bequest of Rs. 20,000, for the purposes of building a house thereon, to his son Nogendronath), the testator Dwarkanath gave the beneficial interest in the residue of his rea...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Needhee Koondoo Vs. Rajah Rudhoo Nath NaraIn Mullo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal457
Markby, J.1. There can be no doubt whatever that under the ijara the plaintiff from the time the ijara term commenced, and whilst that term lasted, was, and is, the only person capable of granting a valid lease to tenants, or making any valid arrangement as to the collection of rents. The zemindar has granted to the plaintiff for fourteen years his zemindari, 'together with the rights.' There is nothing to show that the zemindar intended to retain to himself the power of making any settlements with the tenants or the monduls during the term; on the contrary it is expressly said--'You have during the term power as complete as my own to make settlements in the said zemindari,' the only qualification added being that these settlements shall not be injurious to the Rajah's reversionary interest. It would require very clear words to qualify this express power, and there are no such words in the document.2. His Lordship then referred to the terms of the pottah, especially to the stipulation,...
Tag this Judgment!Miller Vs. the Administrator-general of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal412
Markby, J.1. It is admitted between the parties that the Official Assignee as such Assignee is entitled to half of the said fund.2. The argument before me has turned entirely upon the construction of the Succession Act, especially of Section 4, and it has been assumed throughout the argument that the questions which arise relate to moveable property. Section 4 of the Succession Act provides that 'no person shall by marriage acquire any interest in the property of the person whom he or she marries, or become incapable of doing any act in respect of his or her own property, which he or she could have done if unmarried.' It is contended for the plaintiff, that that section must be read as if it had run thus: 'No person having a British Indian domicile shall by marriage acquire, &c.;' Mr. Evans for the defendant contends that the section governs every marriage in India. There has not been, as far as I am aware, any previous discussion as to the meaning of this section, and I must therefore...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›