Kolkata Court June 1878 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Koylash Chunder Mojoomdar and ors. Vs. Bonomali Bajadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal135
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that there has been a mistake pervading the lower Courts in this case.2. The question arose in this way: The plaintiff', an execution-creditor, attached certain lands held by his execution-debtors. The present defendant who is the occupancy ryot of those lands, objected to their being sold, inasmuch as the execution-debtors were his kurpha tenants, and that their interest in the land was not saleable without his (the occupancy ryot's) consent.3. This objection prevailed; whereupon this suit was brought by the plaintiff against the occupancy ryot and the execution-debtors to establish his right to sell the judgment-debtor's interest.4. The suit was dismissed in the first Court; but the Appellate Court gave the plaintiff a decree, on the ground that the kurpha tenants held under a jummai right from the defendant Bonomali Bajadur, the ryot.5. The case then came before the High Court in special appeal, when it was remanded to try the question which the plaint...
Koonjo Mohun Dass Vs. Nobo Coomar Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal216
Maclean, J.1. This suit was instituted on behalf of Koonjo Mohun Dass, minor son of Ramkishore Dass, for joint possession of lands of a taluk, on the allegation that Ramkishore purchased, at a sale in execution of decree, the rights and interests of Jogendra Singh in the taluk, in 1270, and took possession by the usual method through the Court on 8th Magh 1271 (corresponding with 21st January 1865); but the first and second defendants, who are sons of Jogendra Singh, continued to hold possession by collecting the rents.2. The first defendant, Chitra Singh, stated that his father's property was all sold under decrees for his debts; that he (defendant) recovered the share which the plaintiff claims, and subsequently sold it to one Nobo Coomar, who is now in possession.3. The Munsif went fully into the various pleas raised before him, and gave the plaintiff a decree, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed the Munsif's decree on the ground that Ramkishore Dass had never taken effecti...
Hurgobindo Burmon and ors. Vs. Sharat Chunder Burmon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal510
Maclean, J.1. In this case the plaintiff's and defendants were owners of an undivided estate, which they brought to partition under Reg. XIX of 1814. The partition appears to have been duly carried out, and the lands divided amongst the co-sharers according to their interests in the estate.2. The plaintiffs bring this suit for a declaration of their mokurari jamai rights in the whole of a plot of land described as dag 153 and in 10/16 of a plot described as dag 152, and ask the Civil Court to direct that the partition award may be altered, and dag 153 allotted to the share of defendants 1 to 5, and 10/16 on dag 152 allotted to the share of defendants 1 to 6 and 48, and the rest of dag 152, to the share of themselves and defendants 39 to 43. The plaintiffs appear to have made a similar application to the Revenue authorities, and base their action on the refusal to grant their request.3. Three of the defendants (24, 25, 30) appeared in the Munsif's Court, and disputed the jurisdiction of...
Khajah Ahsanoollah Vs. Kajee Aftabooddeen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal594
Maclean, J.1. The only question arising in this appeal which requires a separate decision is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, and if so, from what date. The subordinate Judge has refused to allow interest prior to determination of the rent, and he supports his refusal by a decision of this Court, dated the 15th July 1868, in Raj Mohun Neogee v. Aunund Chunder Chowdry (10 W.R., 166).2. We think that that decision is not in accordance with the principles laid down in the Full Bench decision in Doyamoyee Chowdrainee v. Bholanath Ghose (B.L.R., Sup. Vol., 592; S.C., 6 W.R., Act X, Rul., 77). There the principle laid down is, that the non-payment of the rent at the enhanced rate constitute the case of action, or, in other words, an arrear of rent, liable for interest, does not depend upon the date of decree, but upon the date upon which it became due.3. When a tenant is called upon by notice to pay an enhanced rate of rent, he has more than one course open to him. He can ...
Mohini Mohun Roy Vs. Ichamoyee Dassea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal612
Mitter, J.1. The contention in special appeal is, that the decree of 1804 and the proceedings of 1807 established that the rent of the defendants' taluk was not fixed in perpetuity and that the zamindar, or the person representing the zamindar, is entitled to enhance its rent.2. We do not think that this contention is well founded. We do not agree with the Judge in the construction which he has put upon the decree, and the proceedings mentioned above. The effect of these documents seems to us to be that the rent of the taluk in question was fixed in perpetuity and for ever.3. It appears from these documents that Raja Bishonath was the owner of the zamindary of Parganna Amrol in the year 1205 (1798). On the strength of a conveyance, dated the 28th Choit 1205, alleged to have been executed by Raja Bishonath, Sreenath Kobiraj, the predecessor in title of the defendants, obtained an order from the Collector of Rajshahye for the separation of the mouzas (which constitute the defendants' pat...
In the Goods Of: Gasper Malcolm Gasper (Deceased)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal734
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think it is quite clear that the ad valorem duty must be paid upon the present grant of probate. At the time when the first grant of probate was made to one of the executors named in the will, no ad valorem duty was payable. The only sum charged was a commission fee of Rs. 10. That executor has died, and the other two executors now wish to prove the will. Act VII of 1870 requires the ad valorem duty to be paid upon any grant of probate, and I find no provision exempting these executors from payment of the duty. In fact, but for the official notification made under the provisions of the Act, dated the 24th of April 1874, the ad valorem foe would he payable a second time upon any second grant of probate. But here no injustice is done, because the duty haft never been paid upon this property.2. The case of In the Goods of Chalmers, deceased 6 B.L.R. Apx. 137, decided by Sir R. Couch is in point, and is entirely in accordance with the view which I take of this quest...
Mattongeney Dossee Vs. RamnaraIn Sadkhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal83
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the Judge is quite right in holding that the document in question is not admissible in evidence.2. It has been argued by Mr. Bonnerjee on behalf of the appellant that we are concluded here by the authority of the Full Bench case of Lachmipat Sing Dugar v. Mirza Khairat Ali 4 B.L.R., F.B., 18, which was decided under the provisions of Act XX of 1866, Section 49.3. The words of that section run as follows: 'No instrument required by Section 17 to be registered shall be received in evidence in any civil proceeding in any Court, or shall affect any property comprised therein, unless it shall have been registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act'; and it was held by the Full Bench that where a document was divisible in its nature, and consisted partly of a bond for Rs. 2,000, and partly of a mortgage of certain property to secure payment of the money, the document was receivable in evidence without registration for the purpose of proving the ...
In Re: in the Goods of Hurry Doss Bonnerjee and Sreemutty Gungamoney D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal87
Pontifex, J.1. I think Mr. Bonnerjee's caveat must be discharged, and he will have no costs of appearance. I do not think administration can be granted to the father, there being no debts, at all events no debts of which the amount is unliquidated. The widow can apply when she comes of age, and until then the Official Trustee can pay the income to her next friend for her maintenance.2. If there are any debts, application must be made to the Court.3. Taxed costs of suit may be paid by the Official Trustee out of the fund in his hands. If he is not satisfied to do it on this order, he must come to Court under the Trustee Act....
Mackintosh Vs. Wingrove
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal137
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The learned Judge has somewhat misconceived the true principle of the decision in Mackintosh v. Hunt (I.L.R., 2 Cal., 202).2. The equitable defence which formed the ground of the High Court's judgment in that case was founded upon two considerations, neither of which would have been sufficient without the other, namely:1st.--That the bargain made by Mackintosh with the defendant Hunt was grossly extortionate, and calculated to deceive an unwary young man as to its real character; and2ndly.--That although the other maker of the note, Norender Dutt, might have understood the nature of the transaction, it appeared that the defendant Hunt had never even read the note, and was not aware of its true meaning.3. If there had been nothing unfair or unreasonable in the contract itself, and the defendant had reaped the benefit of it, the fact of his not understanding its nature would have been no valid answer to the claim.4. Or, on the other hand, however extortionate the ba...
Allumuddy Vs. Braham and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal140
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It being found, as a fact, that the millinery business was carried on by the wife alone, and that the husband had no concern in it, we think it clear that the Judge was right in giving a decree against the wife alone. The husband could only be made liable in such a case upon the principle that the wife was impliedly carrying on the business as his agent; and we consider that any such implication is excluded by the provisions of the Act and the facts as found in the case.2. We also think that the decree should be executed only against the wife's separate property; and that the form of it should be limited accordingly....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »