Kolkata Court June 1878 Judgments
Hurrogobind Raha and ors. Vs. Ramrutno Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal67
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The Judge in the lower Appellate Court appears to have made a mistake in this case. He seems to have supposed that whether the defendants held by payment of rent or by performance of certain services, if they had held for a period of twenty or twenty-five years, the landlord could have no right to eject them.2. If they had held the land by the performance of services, and they distinctly refused to perform those services, the consideration for their being allowed to continue in possession would wholly fail and, under these circumstances, we see no reason why they should not be ejected.3. It was clearly the duty of the lower Appellate Court, upon the issues which were framed in this case and considering what the nature of the case was, to find, as a matter of fact upon the evidence whether the defendants held the land, as they say they did by payment of rent, or as a service tenure. Instead of deciding the case upon that issue, the lower Appellate Court seems to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Bir Chunder Manikya Vs. Ram Sunker Senaputty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal714
L.S. Jackson, J.1. We are unable to agree in the interpretation put on Section 31 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 by the lower Appellate Court.2. It appears that in the covenant between the plaintiff and the defendant in this case there was a condition that the lands at that time uncultivated should commence to bear rent at the expiration of seven years from their being put under cultivation and the plaintiff's claim was for rent in respect of certain land which was alleged to have come within this category during the Bengal year.3. The defendant made a deposit of rent under Section 31, putting in the amount which he had been previously accustomed to pay.4. The Subordinate Judge thinks that the rules as to deposit of rent have no reference to rent which had not at that time been payable. In the case of Taramonee Koonwaree v. Jeebun Mundur (6 W.E., Act X, Rul. 98) it was held that the limitation of six months prescribed by Section 6 of Beng. Act VI of 1862 applies to deposits made after rents...
Tag this Judgment!Rungo Lall Mundul Vs. Abdool Guffoor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal314
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Our only doubt in this appeal has been, whether we ought to decide the case upon the materials before us, or to remand it for re-consideration; and we think that perhaps the safest course will be to remand it.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the rent of certain lands which are specifically described in the plaint as plots 7, 8, 9, and 12. The defendants' case was, that they were not tenants to the plaintiff at all. They do not say that they are not in possession of the lands which are mentioned in the plaint, but they say that they have no concern with any lands which belong to the plaintiff, and that they do not owe the plaintiff any rent.3. Now in the Munsif's Court the plaintiff gave evidence of a decree which was obtained in a suit for rent in the year 1863. That suit was brought by Hera Lall Seal, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff, against the predecessors in title of the present defendants, for the rent of those very lands, describ...
Tag this Judgment!Autoo Misree and ors. Vs. Bidhoo Mookhee Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal605
Jackson, J.1. Now Section 207 applies only to cases where only one of several decree-holders for himself claims to execute the decree. In that case the Court is authorized to allow such claim, taking proper steps to protect the interests of the other parties. This is not a case of that sort, but the application was really made on behalf of all. Even, however, if it had been dealt with under Section 207, it would equally have been an application to execute the decree, such as would avail the other decree-holders. It appears to us that, although objection might have been taken to the form of this application, and the Court might have thought it necessary to order the form to be amended, still it was an application substantially on behalf of all the parties concerned, and ought to have been treated accordingly. We think that execution is not barred, and ought to be allowed to proceed. The appeal is allowed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Koylash Chunder Paul Chowdhry Vs. Preonath Roy Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal610
Markby, J.1. This was a suit instituted on the 30th May 1876. The limitation, therefore, which is applicable, is that which is contained in Act IX of 1871. The suit is brought not to set aside any order, but to establish the plaintiffs title to the property which the Court has ordered to be sold, and which has been sold, in execution of a decree to which the present plaintiff was no party. The plaintiff had appeared and asked the Court to release the property from attachment, but the Court refused his application, and ordered the property to he sold. Until the time when Act IX of 1871 came into force, the suit ought to have been brought within one year from the date of the order rejecting the plaintiff's application to get his property released from attachment, by reason of the last twelve words of Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859. These twelve words having been repealed, we must now look to Act IX of 1871 to see what provision is applicable. The provision upon which the Subordinate Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Nirod Krishno Roy Vs. Woomanath Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal718
Markby, J.1. In this case the Subordinate Judge of Furreedpore, upon the application of the plaintiff, and without any opposition on the part of the defendants, instructed an ameen to prepare a map of the land in dispute, and to show by a distinct line if the land decreed to the plaintiffs in the former suit was identical with any portion of the land now in dispute. The ameen was also directed to check the map filed by the defendants, and show the result of it by a line of different colour in his own map. He was further directed to report whether the boundary set forth in the plaint was correct or not, and to ascertain the value of the land according to the profits of it. The last instruction was only in order to dispose of the objection made as to stamp-duty. This was in fact a commission issued for the benefit both of the plaintiff and of the defendants. Unfortunately, the District Judge seems to have thought, first, that he had a right to interfere with the Subordinate Judge in a su...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Petition of Hurro Soondery Chowdhrain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal20
Ainslie, J.1. On the 12th of this month we made an order directing the Magistrate to issue a commission for the examination of Hurro Soondery Chowdhrain, at the same time giving him leave to show cause why the order should not be withdrawn.2. The Magistrate has now sent up a letter addressed to the Registrar of this Court. This is not the proper form in which he ought to have shown cause. If he wished to show cause, he should have applied to the Legal Remembrancer to cause an appearance to be made for him in Court.3. We might deal with this matter as if the Magistrate had not made any appearance at all, but we think it better, under the circumstances, to dispose of the rule on its merits.4. The reasons assigned by the Magistrate in his letter appear to us to be wholly insufficient. It may be that this lady, as well as any other person under examination, may make statements which are not wholly true; but the Magistrate can guard against that by deputing some person thoroughly instructed...
Tag this Judgment!Hurronath Bhunjo Vs. Chunni Lall Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal877
Markby, J.1. I think that there is no ground upon which we can say in special appeal that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court was wrong. The decree is dated the 18th July 1864. By some reason or other the decree was kept in force until the year 1873, when the defendant was arrested. He applied for his discharge under Section 273 of Act VIII of 1859; and upon that application an arrangement was come to that he should not be sent to jail provided that he would undertake to pay the sum of 10 rupees a month towards the liquidation of the decree. That arrangement having been come to, execution proceedings were struck off in September 1873. The judgment-debtor paid 10 rupees a month as agreed upon up to October 1876. Subsequently, on the 21st June 1877, an application was made by the decree-holder to execute the decree of the 18th July 1864 by arrest.2. The District Judge of the 24-Pargannas has held that that application must be refused, on the ground that by the law of limitation app...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Nurul Huqq and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal757
Ainslie, J.1. In the case of Nilmadhub Ghosal 19 W.R. Cr. Rul. 1, a Bench of this Court held that we have no power to reduce the amount of recognisances which have been forfeited. The Bombay High Court has expressed the same opinion.2. The papers must he returned. The Officiating Magistrate should refer the matter to Government, if he thinks the amount of the recognisances was excessive....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: in the Matter of Abdool Hamed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal94
Markby, J.1. The only objection to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner with which we have to deal upon the present reference is that arising out of Section 66 of the Burma Courts Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 66 of the Burma Courts Act provides that, within the towns of Rangoon, Moulmein, Akyab and Bassein, the Recorder shall have and exercise such powers and authorities with respect to insolvent-debtors and their creditors as are for the time being exercisable with respect to insolvent-debtors and their creditors by the High Court or a Judge thereof in Calcutta. Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that 'nothing in the Code shall be deemed to affect the Burma Courts Act, 1875. Section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that nothing in the Code 'affects' the jurisdiction or procedure of the Recorder of Rangoon sitting as an Insolvent Court in Rangoon, Moulmein, Akyab or Bassein.' Section 344 of the Code of Civil Procedure, und...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »