Kolkata Court September 1877 Judgments
The Bank of Bengal Vs. M. Pogose (Window and Representative of J.G. Po ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal175
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs, the Bank of Bengal, to recover from Mr. Joachim Gregory Nicholas Pogose, a sum of Rs. 1,10,687-10-2, being the aggregate amount of principal and interest due upon nineteen bills of exchange, each drawn by Mr. Nicholas Peter Pogose upon and accepted by his cousin Mr. J.G.N. Pogose, payable to the drawer's order, and endorsed by the drawer to the plaintiffs' Bank.2. The Court below have decided in the plaintiffs' favour; and as the defendant died pending the proceedings, the present defendant, Mrs. Mary Pogose, his widow and representative, became defendant in his stead, and is prosecuting this appeal.3. The defence is, that Mr. J.C.N. Pogose accepted the bills merely for the accommodation of his cousin and without any consideration; that the plaintiffs were aware of that fact; and that by consenting to and signing a deed of trust, which Mr. N.P. Pogose made of all his property for the benefit of his creditors, the Bank have ...
Tag this Judgment!Goluknath Misser Vs. Lalla Prem Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal308
White, J.1. It appears that in this case the defendants (who are grouped together as No. 1) borrowed from the special appellant (who is the plaintiff in the suit) on the 13th of Srawun 1271 F.S. Rs. 295 at 2 per cent, per mensem, and by a mortgage bond of that date, in order to secure the payment of that sum with interest, mortgaged to the plaintiff certain land which is described in the mortgage bond as '20 bighas of 'Inglis' land belonging to us exclusively' (meaning defendants No. 1),--that is to say, 10 bighas out of 50 bighas in Mouzah Kuchia, and 10 bighas in Mouzah Dowlutpore.' Certain payments on account of the interest were made as appears by the endorsement on the bond; but in 1278 P.S. the whole of the principal sum and a large arrear of interest still remaining unpaid, the parties came to an adjustment of account, when Rs. 500 was found to be due for principal and interest upon the foot of the bond, and thereupon the defendant No. 2 executed to the plaintiff another mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Lill Dhary Muhton Vs. Ram Lall Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal777
Ainslie, J.1. There is no evidence to show that, by agreement or otherwise, the accumulation of water is limited to a certain quantity; and that when the water rises to a given height, the defendants, or the plaintiff, or the plaintiff's zemindar, is bound or entitled to open a passage for the escape of the surplus.2. The Munsif found that the plaintiff had entirely failed to prove any right to cut the bund: and we must say that, in our opinion, it would require very strong evidence to establish such a claim as that put forward here, not on the part of the zemindar acting on behalf of the cultivators of his estate, but on behalf of each individual ryot according to his own judgment, to cut down the bund of a neighbouring zemindar, seeing that it is well known that the consequence of so doing would be that, when the water once begins to flow over the bund, the bund must give way, and the accumulation of water, which is absolutely necessary for the cultivation of land, must be lost.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Chunder Koondoo and ors. Vs. Taruck Chunder Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal146
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that in this case the plaintiffs are barred by the former judgment. It is to be observed, that the present suit is not to recover khas possession of the property in question. The land is in the occupation of a tenant, and the plaintiffs' only object is to establish their title to it as against the defendant No. 1. We have, therefore, to see whether the right and title which is the subject of claim in this suit was not the very same right and title which was in issue between the same parties, and determined in the former suit. When once it is made clear, that the self-same right and title was substantially in issue in both suits, the precise form in which the suit was brought, or the fact that the plaintiff in the one case was the defendant in the other, becomes immaterial.2. Now, in this instance, the plaintiff in the former suit is the same person as the defendant No. 1 in this; and he sued to recover from the occupying tenant the rent of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Leelanund Singh Bahadoor Vs. Thakoor Munrunjun Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal251
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff, the zemindar of the mehals of Khurukpore, to recover from the defendants certain arrears of rent in respect of Taluk Kukwara, appertaining to the Khurukpore mehals; and also to have his right declared to an enhanced rent at the annual rate of Rs. 11,240 from the beginning of 1282 F.S., or any other rate which the Court may think just as an equivalent for the ghatwali services which the defendants and their predecessors in title have been used to render, but which now, through the agency of Government, have been discontinued.2. This is probably the last scene in a long series of litigation which has been going on between these parties for upwards of thirty years past. The defendants and their ancestors have, from the year 1785, and probably from a still earlier period, been in possession of Taluk Kukwara under a ghatwali tenure. The origin and nature of these tenures are explained very clearly in the judgment delivered by Lord...
Tag this Judgment!Surdharee Loll Vs. Mansoor Ally Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal298
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of Mr. C.T. Manson, Deputy Collector, also called Extra Assistant Commissioner, of Rajmehal, which is admittedly and entirely within the Sonthal Pergannas. The appeal is valued at Rs. 5,922.2. By Act XXXVII of 1855 of the Governor-General in Council, the Sonthal Pergannas were removed from the operation of the general laws and regulations of the Bengal Code, except so far as was thereinafter provided.3. By Section 2 of that Act1 I the administration of civil justice was vested in officers to he appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. There was a proviso that all suits beyond the value of Rs. 1,000 were to be tried and determined, according to the general laws and regulations, in the same manner as if that Act had not been passed.4. The 4th section 2 declared that all decisions in civil suits passed by such officers to the extent of the powers conferred on them were final, and it was made lawful for the Lieutenant-Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Chunder Coomar Roy and ors. Vs. Bhogobutty Prosonno Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal236
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that 'applying to enforce the decree' in Article 167 means the application (under Section 212, Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise) by which proceedings in execution are commenced, and not applications of an incidental kind made during the pendency of such proceedings.2. But we also think that some meaning must be given to the alternative expression 'keep in force' occurring in the same article, and that consequently in cases governed by Act IX of 1871, a decree-holder who has applied to the Court simpliciter 'to keep the decree in force' may, within three years from the date of such last named application, obtain execution of his decree.Ainslie, J.3. I accept the decision of my learned colleagues as the proper answer to the question put....
Tag this Judgment!Adurmoni Deyi Vs. Chowdhry Sib NaraIn Kur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal1
Markby, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover possession of a mouza which ho alleged to be his ancestral property. He stated that the property had been sold to the defendant by his father in May 1862, that is twelve years, all but a very few days before this suit was brought; but that, as there was no necessity for the sale, it was void, and not binding on him, the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff claimed to belong to a family governed by the Mitakshara law. There was some dispute about this, but this point has been finally settled in favour of the plaintiff.3. It has also been argued that this property is not to be considered as ancestral, because, though it belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff made a partition of the family property with his own brother, and the mouza in suit, when it fell to the share of the plaintiff's father, belonged to him absolutely as his separate property, and his son did not on his birth acquire any interest therein. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›