Kolkata Court April 1877 Judgments
Barnes Vs. Kishen Gopaul Mawar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal375
Markby, J.1. The question between the parties in this special appeal is, whether or no the decree passed under Section 52, Beng. Act VIII of 1869, by which the defendant was directed to pay a certain amount as arrears of rent within fifteen days, otherwise he was to be ejected, is good in law.2. It appears that the Court below has held that the land to which the suit relates consisted of two portions,--one of which is nagdi land, and the other bhaoli land. There was an objection taken in special appeal that the Court below was wrong in treating any of these lands as bhaoli. But we expressed our opinion in the course of the argument yesterday that there was nothing in that objection. No doubt there was evidence that, for some time, the land had been in possession of a person under the present plaintiff, between whom and the defendant the rent was treated as all payable in money: but that could not alter the terms of the tenancy as between the plaintiff' and the defendant, and when that ...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Shaw Tanti Vs. Shiro Kumari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal418
Markby, J.1. This is a suit brought under the provisions of Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure[1] for setting aside an order made in an execution-proceeding taken in respect of certain land, of which the plaintiff claims to be the owner. He put in a claim under Section 246, and failed; and thereupon he brought this suit, to use the words of that section, 'to establish his right.' He sets out his title saying that the land of which he claims to be the owner appertained to 23 bigas II cottas 7 chittaks of land which belonged to one Ram Dhoba; that out of the said land, Ram Dhoba sold 7 bigas, which are in dispute, to Lochunkali; that while Lochunkali was in possession of the said land, he sold it to the plaintiff under a kobala of the 14th Joist, 1269. 'Since then I have been in possession of the same through bhag tenants, by annually paying Rs. 7-14-15 as the rent thereof to the maliks. To this there was no objection offered by anybody.'2. Various issues were raised; and one of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Bheecunram Napit Alias Bheecun Napit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal291
Macpherson, J.1. I am of opinion that Section 147 gives mo no power to grant this application. The object in fact is to appeal against an acquittal. But Section 147 does not provide for such an appeal. It contemplates the transfer of a case before disposal, or interference on behalf of persons aggrieved or injured by an order of the Magistrate. But there was no intention to give power to interfere in order to set aside an acquittal. It' it had been intended to give that remedy, it would, no doubt, have boon expressly given, as in the Criminal Procedure Code and in the Presidency Magistrates' Act, IV of 1877. One section of the lattor Act (Section 181) really shows that Section 147 was intended to apply only whore there has boon a conviction, for it makes notice to the Government prosecutor necessary before an application can be made under Section 147.2. Even, however, if I had the power to interfere, I would not exercise it in such a case as this....
Tag this Judgment!Nilmoni Singh Deo Vs. Raghumoni Audhikary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal393
Markby, J.1. It seems to us that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is wrong. The suit is brought to recover a specific sum of money which the plaintiff says the defendant No. 1, in collusion with defendant No. 2, without his knowledge and consent, had obtained from the collectorate. The defendants pleaded limitation. The Court below thinks that the case is governed either by Article 90 of the 2nd Schedule of the Limitation Act or by Article 48. Article 90 provides for a suit by a principal against his agent for moveable property received by the agent and not accounted for. The plaintiff does not sue the defendant as his agent; he does not admit that the defendant was his agent. On the contrary, he denied that the defendant was his agent, and the Court below does not find that the defendant was so. Therefore it cannot possibly be brought under that head. Article 48 clearly provides for a case in which a suit is brought to recover moveable property acquired by means of a criminal...
Tag this Judgment!Bhubon Mohini Dabea Vs. Chunder Mohun Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal389
Markby, J.1. We think on the face of these proceedings we must hold that the suit is barred by limitation. The mortgage is dated the 24th of September, 1850; the default was made on the 24th September, 1854; notice of foreclosure issued on the 7th February, 1860. It is not shown on what date the notice was served, but the foreclosure must have become absolute some time before the 26th June, 1861, because the case was struck off on that date with permission to bring a regular suit, as appears from the plaint. Therefore, the title of the plaintiff must have become absolute at least as early as the 26th June, 1861, and the suit would be barred on the 26th June, 1873.2. Now, on the 6th February, 1873, the plaintiff' presented a petition to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis to recover possession. She was ordered to appear on the 1st March, and she did not do so. She was again ordered to appear on the 15th June, and she did not do so; and the case was struck off' so far as the application ...
Tag this Judgment!Choonee Lall Vs. Bhimul Doss Alias Lall Baboo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Cal379
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This case raises precisely the same question which was decided by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Delhi Parshad v. Thakur Dial I.L.R. 1 All. 105 and we feel bound, having regard to the weight of authority, to decide in accordances with that decision, that, under the circumstances stated in the case, the interest of the deceased brother in the family property ought, in the event of a partition, to be divided between his nephew and his two brothers in equal shares.2. This point was distinctly decided by the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut in the year 1802 in the case of Duljeet Singh v. Sheomunook Sing 1 Sel. Rep. 59 and Mr. Colebrooke was one of the Judges who decided it. The same rule has been laid clown since by other authorities, and is recognized by the Lords of the Privy Council in the case of Katama Natchiar v. The liajah of Shivagunga 9 Moore's T.A. 539 at p. 611.3. We do not find any authority conflicting expressly with those decisions; and w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›