Kolkata Court July 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.
Bireshur Mozoomdar Vs. Krishna Kishore Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal595
Mitter, J.1. We think that in this case the preliminary objection taken by the pleader for the respondent must prevail. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover from the defendant No. 1 Rs. 74-12-14 1/4 under the following circumstances:The plaintiff' alleges that he is the holder of a patni taluk, the rent of which is Rs. 128-11-2 1/2; that by an arrangement between himself and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the zamindars, he had, out of the rent payable by him, to pay Rs. 76-4 Government revenue of the zamindari, and Rs. 3-2 road-cess; and that he, accordingly, for the year 1281, paid these two amounts into the Collectorate; that the balance, Rs. 49-5-1 1/2-, which was due to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was tendered to them, but they having refused to receive that money he deposited the amount in the Munsif's Court on the 1st of April 1874 under the provisions of Section 46, Beng. Act VIII of 1869; and that, notwithstanding these facts, the defendant No. 1 took proceedings under Reg...
Laidley and ors. Vs. Gunness Chunder Sahoo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal438
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff's now appeal from this decision upon the ground that they had by law a right to sell the tenure under their second decree, and that they were not bound under the circumstances to give any notice of the decree to the defendant Gunness.2. The respondent, on the other hand, contends that the plaintiffs were bound in equity to have given him notice of their decree, and that the Judge's decision founded on that obligation was correct.3. But we are quite unable to discover how such an obligation arises. There is certainly no provision to that effect in the Rent Law, and no authority has been referred to by the learned pleader for the respondent, which in any way justifies his contention.4. It is remarkable that, in the defendant's written statement, he never says from first to last that he was not aware of the plaintiffs' second decree; and the Munsif says that he does not believe he was ignorant of it. It certainly is very extraordinary, if he was so; bec...
Golabolee Vs. Kootesboollah Sircar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal527
Mitter, J.1. In this case the plaintiff seeks to recover possession of a tenure from which he alleges that he has been dispossessed by the zemindar-defendant, assisted by the other defendants. The lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiff's allegation as to ejectment is not made out; and it is also found, upon the evidence on the record, that the plaintiff abandoned the land and went to another village. Upon that ground alone it is quite clear that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court could he maintained. But the lower Appellate Court has further decided the case against the plaintiff upon a question of law raised between the parties upon the assumption that the plaintiff has really been ejected from the tenure. We think that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court upon that point also is correct. The facts upon which the plaintiff relies are shortly these: that a suit for arrears of rent was brought against him in the middle of the year 1278 (1871) by the zamindar. A decre...
Fuckoruddeen Mahomed Ahsan Vs. Mohima Chunder Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal529
Mitter, J.1. We think that in this case the judgments of the lower Courts are not correct. The plaintiff sues for contribution on the allegation that he and the defendants were jointly liable under the decree, and that in execution of that decree, his property alone was sold on the 7th June 1878. He brings this suit on the ground that as he and the defendants were jointly liable under the decree, and as the decree has been satisfied solely by the sale of his property, he is entitled to compel the defendants to contribute their share of the sum thus realized by the decree-holder.2. The plaint was first filed on the 5th June 1876, but it was returned by the Munsif on the 14th June, in order that the plaintiff might specify the sums that the was entitled to get from each of the defendants, and he was directed to refile it within one week. The amended plaint, however, was not filed until the 17th July 1876. It was rejected by the Munsif on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation...
The Empress Vs. Ashootosh Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal483
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that under Section 30 the confession of a prisoner which affects himself and some other prisoner charged with the same offence, becomes, when duly proved, admissible in evidence as against both prisoners, and must he so dealt with by the Court. When this confession has been duly proved, it may, by the express language of the section, be taken into consideration against either prisoner; and I do not see in what other way it can he taken into consideration than as evidence. There is no provision in the section by which the confession is to be receivable against one prisoner in one way, and against the other prisoner in another way. But although the section does, in my opinion, make the confession admissible in evidence against either prisoner, the weight which ought to be attached to such evidence, and the question, whether, taken by itself, it is sufficient in point of law to justify a conviction, is a question for the Judge who tries the case.2. A ...
Maseyk Vs. Fergusson and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal304
Pontifex, J.1. In this case the plaintiff claims as upon an intestacy as one of the next-of-kin of H. Section Maseyk, alleging that the residuary gift under his will is void for remoteness, in consequence of the Succession Act having confined the period within which a legacy is to vest to a life in being and eighteen years after.2. Of course if I could not dispose of this case on the construction of the will, it would be necessary to raise an issue as to the domicile of the testator's brothers. But it seems to me that I may now dispose of the case on the construction of the will.3. The plaintiff insists that under the second clause of the will no share vests in any child of the testator's brothers until he or she attains twenty-one years. The contention is, that the residuary gift in the will is in the direction to pay or distribute at twenty-one, or, in other words, that the only direction to pay is that in which the element of time is mentioned. In this case, if governed by the Succe...
Brojokishore Sen and ors. Vs. Mahomed Elahee Buksh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal497
1. The Judgment in this case simply follows the decision in the cases of Jay Mangal Sing v. Lal Rang Pal Sing (4 B.L.R., App., 53); Khasro Mandar v. Premlal (9 B.L.R., App., 41); and Luchmeeput Singh Bahadoor v. Raj Coomaree Dabee (23 W.R., 275)....
Jadu Dass Vs. Sutherland and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal557
L.S. Jackson, J.1. The first question taken before the District Judge on the defendants' appealing, that the plaintiff had been dismissed from his post of Mohunt, failed. The second ground was that the suit could not be maintained, and the Judge decided this point in favour of the appellant. Mr. Field refers to no authority but that of his own decisions. This is a question which has been repeatedly before the High Court, both the Full Bench and Division Benches, and it would have been well if he had examined authorities which are equally binding upon him and upon other Judges in these provinces. Two cases have been brought to our notice to-day, and they are cases with which we are familiar. One was decided by a Full Bench--Doorga Churn Surma v. Jampa Dassee (12 B.L.R., 289; S.C., 21 W.R., 46). In that case the head-note is--'A suit by a co-sharer for arrears of rent which she had heretofore received in proportion to her share, but which she alleged now to be withhold by the ryot in col...
Prosunno Chunder Bhuttacharjee Vs. Kristo Chytunno Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal342
Markby, J.1. In the year 1872 one Prankristo Chuckerbutty died leaving no child or near relation. Prior to his death he had been living with one Bibuty Bhusun Dayi as his wife, and at his death this woman managed the ceremonies of his funeral, no other relative having then come forward, and she continued to live in Prankristo's house and took possession of his property. About a year before his death, Prankristo had obtained a loan from the present plaintiff for a small amount. After Prankristo's death, the plaintiff sued Bibuty as representative of Prankristo, describing her as his widow, for the amount of the loan. She did not defend the suit, and the plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs. 71-3-9.2. When, however, the plaintiff went to execute his decree against the property of Prankristo, he found that it had all been transferred to the possession of the present defendant, Prosunno Chunder Bhuttacharjee, the brother of Bibuty, with whom she had gone to reside. Prosunno Chunder was a dis...
The Secretary of State Vs. Poran Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1878
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal740
Jackson, J.1. The only substantial point for decision in this case seems to be, whether the plaintiff, as sirdar ghatwal, is liable to be ejected from the ghatwali tenure by the Magistrate, on being dismissed from the post of ghatwal, for the authority of the Magistrate to dismiss is not directly raised in the plaint, while his authority to allow the plaintiff to perform the duties of ghatwal or to prohibit him is directly reserved to the Magistrate by the Judge's decree.2. In regard to the point before us, it is to be observed that the plaintiff alleges himself to be an irremoveable tenant at a quit-rent, with the option of performing certain services if required to perform them, but apparently not liable to any forfeiture for refusal. His theory seems to be, that the service is an appendage to his tenure, and not that the tenure is conditional on the performance of the service. The plaintiff has no title deeds whatever, or any documentary evidence of any description, to show that he ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »