Kolkata Court February 1878 Judgments

Sheikh Khoorshed HosseIn and ors. Vs. Nubbee Fatima and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal552

Ainslie, J.1. In special appeal it is contended that the defendant is not entitled to execute the decree at all; and if entitled, that she is haired by limitation.2. With regard to the first point, we arc of opinion that a decree for partition is not like a decree for money or for the delivery of specific property, which is only in favour of the plaintiff in the suit. It is a joint declaration of the rights of persons interested in the property of which partition is sought, and having been so made, it is unnecessary for those persons who are defendants in the suit to come forward and institute a new suit to have the same lights declared under a second order made. It must he taken that a decree in such suits is a decree, when properly drawn up, in favour of each shareholder or set of shareholders having a distinct share. In the present instance there being fortunately only two parties, there was no room for ambiguity in the drawing up of the decree.3. On the question of limitation, we t...

Chunder Nath Chowdhry Vs. Tirthanund Thakoor and anr.

Court: Kolkata

L.S. Jackson, J.1. Who, after stating the facts of the case as above, and having observed that there Could be no doubt that the purchase by Koomar Ali was made on behalf of the first defendant, and that Annopoorna having survived Gournath, the purchaser of the latter's reversionary right took nothing, proceeded as follows:2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. The 'fudge in the third paragraph of his judgment says: 'It is quite unnecessary to go at length into the question of limitation which the Subordinate Judge has discussed; it seems to me that the revenue sale, as a bare fact by itself, utterly bars the suit. In the first place, when it occurred it may be doubted whether Kristammd was the person responsible for the revenue, for he was merely Annopoorna's patnidar, and at the instance of the father of the plaintiff', a competent Court bad declared that the patni title would only last for Annopoorna's lifetime. According to plaintiff's own allegation, she died on 21st Fob...

Sheo Gholam Sahoo Vs. Rahut Hossein

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal7

Ainslie, J.1. If the money and property was sufficient for the satisfaction of the decree, it was not necessary for any further proceedings to be taken in execution. So far as the money is concerned, when the appeal was dismissed, it must be taken to have been transferred to the credit of the decree-holder, and the Court should similarly deal with the jewels pledged, converting them into cash for his benefit.2. The District Judge reversed the order of the first Court on the ground that the decree was barred by limitation, but we are of opinion that no question of limitation arises.3. The appeal must be decreed with costs, and the order of the Court of first instance restored....

Bemolasoondury ChowdhraIn and ors. Vs. Punchanun Chowdhry and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal706

Kemp, J.1. In appeal before us the first ground taken that there is no such putnee talook as alleged by defendants has been virtually abandoned, indeed, in the face of the evidence, it is clear that this talook was in existence prior to 1806, in which year Upendro Narayan Chowdhry, zemindar, assigned it by way of maintenance to his grandsons Permanand Chowdhry and Lukhi Chunder Chowdhry ancestors of the present defendant No. 1. Its existence was also established by the decree in the suit of Saroda Gobind Chowdhry and Ors. v. Komul Ghose. The second alleged ground of action is equally untenable, because any possession which may be given, or be said to be given, under the Butwara Law can have no force against third persons who wore no parties to it.2. By a butwara the rights of undertenure-holders are in no way affected, and though, as between shareholders, the assignment of specific lands to each share-bolder has binding effect, yet such assignment docs not of itself entitle the shareho...

The Empress Vs. Baidanath Das

Court: Kolkata

Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are clearly of opinion, that an offence under Section 49, Act XXI of 1856, can be tried summarily by a Magistrate under Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The confiscation, which is provided for by Section 49, is merely a consequence of the conviction, and does not form part of the punishment for the offence. We observe that, in the case of Khetter Mohun Chowrunghee 22 W.R. Cr. Rul. 43, to which we are referred, the question which we are called upon to decide was given up by the Government Pleader without argument; and that in the second case the learned Judges merely followed the ruling in the first, so that this would appear to be the first occasion on which the point has been seriously considered....

NaraIn Singh Vs. Ram Lall Mookerjee

Court: Kolkata

Pontifex, J.1. admitted the plaint, and said that Section 19 of the Code gave the Court jurisdiction, and that it was not necessary to apply under Clause 12 of the Charter....

Rajcoomaree Dassee Vs. Gopal Chunder Bose and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal515

White, J.1. Several objections have been taken by the appellant to the partition which was made by the Ameen in this case, and upon which the orders of the two lower Courts have proceeded. To none of them do I think that this Court can yield in special appeal, except that which complains that certain property has not been divided as directed by the decree. The property which has been thus dealt with by the lower Courts consists of a poojah dalan, certain rooms on either side of it, a courtyard adjoining the dalan, and the western wall of the courtyard, This property has not been divided, but ordered by the Courts below to remain joint.2. I think that, having regard to the form of the decree, it was not open to the Court in executing that decree to order that any part of the property should remain joint unless it was with the consent of all the co-parceners who were parties to the suit. It appears that in this case two of the co-parceners did consent to this portion of the property rema...

J. Williams Vs. Williams and Conran

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal689

Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the petitioner, John Alexander Vincent Williams, sues for a divorce from his wife, Grace Evelina Williams, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent, Robert Conran; and lie also claims damages against the co-respondent. The District Judge has granted a decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage with Rs. 3,000 damages against the co-respondent, and this decree is now before us for our confirmation.2. It appears that the parties wore married in the year 1858 at Benares. They had several children, but only one survived. In the*year 1863 they were living together at Allahabad in the police barracks, where the co-respondent, who is a single man, also resided, the petitioner and the co-respondent being both at that time Police officers. The co-respondent was on intimate terms with the petitioner and his wife; but there is no reason to suppose that the petitioner had at that time discovered anything which could give him cause for suspicion.3....

The Collector of Jessore Vs. Hurrish Chunder Roy

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal713

Ainslie, J.1. A judgment in this case was delivered by us on the 8th of May last, but before it was signed it was objected by Baboo Annoda Persaud Banerjee, for the respondent, that the Court had fallen into a mistake as to the purport of the decree made by the Judge of 24-Pergunnahs on the 11th of March 1873. On examining that decree it appears to us that it was so. The case, therefore, must be disposed of on other grounds.2. The object of the special appellant hero is to set aside the judgment of both the Courts below on the ground that it is inconsistent with the terms of Section 61 of Act VIII of 1869 (B.C.) which says that 'if after sale of any such wider-tenure in execution of decree any portion of the amount decreed remains due, process may be applied for and issued, against any other property, moveable or immoveable, belonging to the debtor.' In this case the under-tenure, of which the arrear was decreed to be due, has not been sold. Therefore, in the words of the section, exec...

Lati Kooer Vs. Sobadra Kooer

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal721

Ainslie, J.1. It appears to us that the view taken by the subordinate Courts is not correct. A number of decisions of this Court have been cited, which lay down that where property has passed in execution of a decree, and that decree has been set aside, the Court which gave possession of the property is bound to make complete restitution to the person injured by its cancelled decree. The first of those decisions is Nursing Churn Sein v. Bidyadhuree Dossee 2 W.R. 275; that no doubt is not a case exactly in point. The question there was with reference to a specific sum of money taken out from the Collectorate treasury in execution of a decree; but we think that the principle on which the Court then based its judgment is the same as that on which the judgments in cases to be quoted further on are based. There is a case in Chowdhry Sib Narain Pohaj Mandhata v. Chowdhry Kishore Narain Pohraj Mandhata 10 W.R. 131 which is distinctly in point; and in that case Mr. Justice Bayley in delivering...