Kolkata Court May 1878 Judgments
Syed Allaoollah and ors. Vs. Hirdy NaraIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal72
L.S. Jackson, J.1. What the plaintiffs sought in this suit was an order that a certain mehal, or share in a mehal, in the possession of the defendants might be brought to sale in satisfaction of the balance due on a mortgage debt secured originally upon some seventeen estates of which the property now in question is one. It was stated in the plaint that all those properties, that is, all the others over which the mortgage extended, being sold, the plaintiff's obtained Rs. 5,882 out of the said decretal amount, but that Rs. 759 still remaining unpaid, an application was made for the share in suit being sold by auction, but upon a petition of objection on behalf of the defendants, the property was released from sale.2. The principal objection made by the defendants was, that the suit of the plaintiffs could not proceed unless an account were taken of the whole mortgaged property as it stood in the hands of different purchasers, and which property had been separately assessed in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: in the Matter of the Appeal of Pertab NaraIn Singh Vs. Subhao K ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal184
J.W. Colvile, J.1. This application seems to involve two distinct questions:1st.--Whether the petitioner, if assumed to have been properly made a party to the suit in the Courts below, and bound by the proceedings therein, is entitled to have a re-hearing of the appeal by reason of his not having entered an appearance as respondent to the appeal, or authorized any person to do so for him; and of the appellant having failed to take the usual steps against him in order either to compel his appearance, or to have the appeal regularly hoard ex parte against him.2ndly.--Whether, under the circumstances stated in the petition, he ought not to he treated as a person not properly represented in the suit in the Courts below, and therefore not bound by the proceedings therein; and if so, whether he is entitled to have the order of Her Majesty in Council varied so as to prevent its being used against him as a bar to any proceedings which he might otherwise be entitled to take in the Courts of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Champabaty Vs. Bibijibun and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal213
Jackson, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued upon an instrument called a chitta, which purported to acknowledge the receipt of money repayable with interest at 12 annas per cent. This instrument being tendered in evidence, the Court below held it could not be received, because it was unstamped. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that it was an instrument of the kind on which stamp duty of one anna was payable, and that the said stamp not having been affixed at the time of the execution, it could not be affixed afterwards, and as the plaintiff was in his opinion debarred from proving by oral evidence a contract which had been reduced to writing, be dismissed the suit in toto.2. In appeal it is contended that this instrument is not one of the kind which ought to be stamped with one-anna duty, but of a kind coming under Article 11 of the second schedule of the General Stamp Act, so that the proper stamp duty was 8 annas, which might have been afterwards received on payment of the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Fakharooddeen Mahomed Ahsan Vs. Pogose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal210
Jackson, J.1. As we have no doubt whatever as to what ought to be the result of this appeal, and as there are other cases depending upon it, we may as well announce what our decision is. We may, if necessary, hereafter state at greater length the reasons which have led to that decision. This suit was dismissed in the Court below upon two preliminary grounds--the first being that the question was in reality res judicata, and the second being the ground of limitation. As to the first point, Mr. Branson has satisfied us that the decision of the Court below was wrong. It is not necessary at present that we should do more than cite the case of Abedoonissa Khatoon v. Ameeroonissa Khatoon (20 W.R., 305), a decision of the late Chief Justice of the Court, in which we entirely concur, and which decision has since been affirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (L.R. 4 I.A., 66; s.c, I.L.R., 2 Cal., 327). It is clear to us that the actual adjudication of this matter would have to be...
Tag this Judgment!Brojendro Coomar Ray and ors. Vs. Rakhal Chunder Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal791
R.C. Mitter, J.1. In this case we think that the lower Appellate Court has taken a correct view of the law of limitation applicable to the facts about which there is no dispute between the parties.2. The rent claimed is of the year 1276 (1869-1870), and the present suit has been brought in Magh 1282 (January 1876), so that if the rent claimed became due in the year 1276 (1869-1870), the present suit not having been brought within three years from the last; day of that year, is clearly barred under Section 29 of the Rent Act.3. It has been said that it did not become due in that year, because in 1275 (1868-1869) a notice for enhancing the rent of the defendants' tenure was issued, and a suit for the recovery of enhanced rent mentioned in the aforesaid notice was brought in Assar 4277 (July 1870); that this suit was finally decided against the plaintiff's by the High Court on the 19th Jaist 1280 (2nd June 1873). The plaintiffs' contention is, that the rent of the year 1276 (1869-1870) at...
Tag this Judgment!GossaIn Sudersan Das Vs. Terietput Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal46
Broughton, J.1. The plaintiff in this case such for adjudication of right to, and confirmation of possession of, land. He bases his title on a deed of sale dated 16th Falgoon 1267 F.S., corresponding with the year 1860 of the Christian era, executed by the defendant, second party, in favour of the plaintiff, by setting aside the collusive Kobala executed by the same defendant in 1864 in favour of the father of the other defendants, who are minors.2. The plaintiff based his claim in his written statement on the deed of sale of 1267, coupled with possession, and all the defendants repudiated that deed of sale, and denied the possession.3. The Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff never was in possession. He says: 'It also clearly appears from all the evidence that the plaintiff's suit on the allegation of his having been in possession is false,' and he dismissed the suit on this preliminary point, directing the plaintiff that if he was out of possession he should sue for recovery of...
Tag this Judgment!Abinash Chunder Dutt Vs. Taru Patur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal79
L.S. Jackson, J.1. Various questions have been raised on the part of the special appellant, one of which is that the plaintiff's suit must fail, because it was a suit for enhancement and no notice of enhancement had been served on the defendant. It seems manifest from the terms of the plaint and of the written statement also that this is not really a suit for enhancement. What the plaintiff asks for is a declaration of right to receive the full rent of 20 bighas, and this prayer of the plaintiff is specially met by the defendant's averments that he had for a particular reason a right to hold the land at half the current rate. He also alleged that he had always been holding at this half rate. The plaintiff, who is a purchaser of the estate, which was formerly a khas mehal, produced as evidence of what the rates were, certain proceedings of the Deputy Collector under Reg. VII of 1822. Those proceedings were commenced in 1843 and concluded in 1845. To that the defendant objects, in the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Doorga Persad Singh Vs. Doorga Konwari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal190
B. Peacock, J.1. This is a suit brought by Doorga Persad Singh, son of Gopi Nath Singh, alleging himself to be the proprietor of Talook Guddi Chakai and other property in Zillah Monghyr. The suit is against Takaitni Doorga Konwari, widow of Futteh Narain Singh, deceased, and mother of Gurbh Narain Singh, deceased, and also against Maharaja Joy Mungul Singh. It was brought, first, to obtain possession from the widow by adjudication of the right of inheritance of the plaintiff in accordance with kulachar, or family usage, in reference to the property in suit left by Tekait Gurbh Narain Singh, son of the late Tekait Futteh Narain Singh; secondly, for an adjudication and order with respect to the right of reversion to the said estate, that a deed which had been executed by the widow in favour of the defendant Joy Mungul Singh should be declared illegal and inoperative after the decease of the widow, the defendant No. 1.2. The property was formerly the property of Dhurm Narain Singh, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Protab Chunder Dass Vs. Gour Chunder Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal132
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff Protap Chunder Dass to recover from the defendants the sum of Its. 20,740 for principal and interest due upon two hundis each dated the 17th of September 1875, payable ninety days after date, drawn by Mr. Pogose, the second defendant, in favour of the third defendant, and accepted by Gour Chunder Roy, the first defendant.2. The lower Court has held that the last-named defendant is not liable, and the only question in this appeal is whether ho is liable or not.3. It is an admitted fact in the case that the only person for whose benefit those hundis were drawn and negotiated is the drawer, the second defendant, and that the other defendants were his sureties; and the defence which is set up by Gour Chunder is that after the bills became due, the plaintiff gave time to Mr. Pogose, the principal debtor, without his (the defendant's) consent, by accepting from him a sum of Rs. 1,860 by way of interest in advance, and that this di...
Tag this Judgment!Hurro Proshad Roy Vs. Gopaul Dass Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal818
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is that of limitation; and, in order to the proper solution of that question, having regard to the authorities to which our attention has been called it is necessary to state the facts with some precision.2. The suit is brought to recover arrears of rents of certain chukdari tenures from the years 1272 to 1279.3. These tenures are within the limits of Talook Kassinugger, which originally belonged to the defendants' ancestors; but as they failed to pay the Government revenue, the talook was sold in the year 1838 under Reg. XI of 1822, and purchased by the Government.4. In 1841 the defendants took a farming lease of it for five years in the name of one Bissonath Dey.5. In 1846 that lease was renewed for another twenty years, so that the defendants held the talook in ijara up to 1866.6. Meanwhile, in 1860, the Government sold its proprietary right in the talook to the plaintiff's father, who afterwards died, leaving the plaintiff his ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »