Kolkata Court January 1879 Judgments
Ram Gobind Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Tarachand Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal778
Jackson, J.1. The point for decision in this case is no doubt one of some importance, and if we entertained any serious doubt upon it, we should certainly have reserved it for further consideration. But it really seems to us not to admit of any question.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants rested his contention upon several points:First, that the rule of English law as to guarantee for quiet enjoyment, which is involved in a demise of property has not been applied to cases in this country; next, that a darpatni is not a lease, but is rather an out-and-out sale; third, that if there were any general principles which otherwise enabled a purchaser to look for indemnity, he had deprived himself of that protection by making a particular stipulation; and last, that in fact the purchaser has had his consideration for that for which he paid the value, and therefore he has no right to be indemnified.3. Now, it seems to us that patnis, darpatnis, and sepatnis, although they may not be in st...
Tag this Judgment!Promothonath Roy Vs. Juggobundhoo Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal767
Jackson, J.1. The point submitted to us in special appeal is very short. It is whether the defendant, by reason of having enjoyed for a number of yeas on payment of rent to successive ijaradars, the right of fishery over a certain jalkar of which the plaintiff is the ground landlord, is entitled to retain and enjoy that right of fishery on payment of rent to the plaintiff against his will That is not, as appears to me, precisely the case submitted by the defendant to the Court below, for he set up in fact an independent title. He says in para 7 of the written statement that the daha, over which the fishery right had been exercised, was not formed in the mode alleged by the plaintiff; and he says: 'Even if for argument's sake it be admitted that the channel of the katadara was excavated afterwards, still, as according to the map produced by the plaintiff the katadara appears to lie contiguous to my jalkar property, I am legally entitled to the right thereof, and the plaintiff is not ent...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dijahur Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal648
1. The order of the 8th November is illegal, because the Magistrate had no power to order the case to be retried; he ought to have referred the case to the High Court, under Section 296 of Act X of 1872, for final orders. The case, being one under Sections 143 and 352 of the Penal Code, was triable by a Magistrate only; and the District Magistrate had not the power to direct the order of discharge to be re-opened-Kistoram connected system of irrigation for what are now the plaintiff's and defendant's mouzahs, beneficial to both states, was by these means provided. The fact that this lower reservoir, which seems to have acquired the name of the Chahul Tal, was built mainly on the defendant's mouzah, leads irresistibly to the conclusion that it was constructed by, or with the consent of, the then owner of that mouzah; and it is evident from its situation, that its main, if not only, use was to store water for the convenient irrigation of the plaintiff's mouzahs. Then it is proved that th...
Tag this Judgment!Janokinath Mookerjee and anr. Vs. Ramrunjun Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal949
Mitter, J.1. In this case the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, because they were of opinion that there had been a misjoinder of parties, and such a joinder of causes of action as would not be allowed under the law.2. After going through the plaint and the written statement, and hearing the learned Pleaders engaged on behalf of the plaintiffs, and one of the defendants Raja Ramrunjun Chuckerbutty, who has alone appeared in this Court, we think that the grounds upon which the Courts below have dismissed the suit are erroneous. The plaintiff's in this suit seek for alternative relief,--viz., for possession of a 4-anna share of a patni taluk; or failing in this, for the recovery of the rent of that share from the defendants from Assar 1281 (1874), to the end of the year 1282 (1875). They allege that their ancestor, Thakoordass Mookerjee, was the owner of a 12-anna share of the zemindari under which the patni is held; that upon a partition between the plaintiffs' ancestor, Rakh...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Komul Dossee Vs. J.W. Laidley and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal957
Jackson, J.1. We are quite unable to agree in the judgment of the Court below in the present case.2. The suit was on the part of Rai Komul Dossee, who holds an ijara settlement under the zamindar of a certain turuff, and she seeks to recover possession of a large area of land situated within that turuff--the area is described as being one thousand six hundred and odd bighas--which land is in the occupation of certain persons constituting the firm of Robert Watson and Co., who are also owners of an indigo concern, called Domekul factory. The first occupation of this land appears to have taken place under a potta granted by the then zamindar in the Bengali year 1260 (1853) to Mr. James Dalrymple, who was then, we may take it, local representative of the firm of Watson and Co., and was the manager of the Domekul indigo concern. That was expressed to be a lease of the land for ten years from 1260 to 1269 (1853 to 1862) at an annual jumma calculated at the rate of 12 annas per biga upon an ...
Tag this Judgment!MartIn Vs. Lawrence
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal655
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This appears to me a very clear case, and Mr. Hill, notwithstanding the short time that he has had to prepare his argument, has said everything that could he said on behalf of his client. (His Lordship then stated the facts of the case, and continued.) The case, as I have already said, is to my mind a very clear one. There is no ground whatever, as far as I can see, for the application; and the mistake of the appellant has arisen from her confounding together two proceedings of the Court, which are entirely diverse in their nature She is attempting to treat her imprisonment, which was a punishment imposed upon her for disobeying an order of the Court, as an ordinary process of execution at the suit of an execution-creditor.2. Execution at the instance of a creditor against the person of the execution-debtor is a process which the Court is bound to enforce, provided the application for it is made in the proper way, and in the regular course of law. It is one of the...
Tag this Judgment!Surbomungola Dabee Vs. Mohendronath Nath and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal508
White, J.1. Declare that the trust for the erection of a bathing-ghaut and temples is void for uncertainty; that the residue of the testator's property is undisposed of; and that the plaintiff, as sole heiress of the testator, is, as such, entitled to the whole of his property after payment of his debts. Usual administration accounts. The Court Receiver to take possession of the testator's property, to convert such as does not consist of money or Government securities into money and invest the whole in Government securities. Power to dispose of the property, by private contract or public sale. Costs of all parties up to decree to be paid out of the estate on scale No. 2. Reserve further directions....
Tag this Judgment!Hemnath Dutt and anr. Vs. Ashgur Sindar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal894
Jackson, J.1. It appears to us that the Court below is in error in this matter. It seems that the lands formerly in the occupation of the defendants, and as to which they had acquired a right of occupancy, were submerged many years ago, as were the lands of other tenants.2. The defendants said: 'The other ryots concerned gave up their lands: we did not give up ours. We did not pay rents, because they were not asked from us.'3. In these circumstances the lower Courts supposed that, inasmuch as there was no express surrender of the land by the tenants, and the landlord did not in any form re-enter upon the land, and because immediately upon the re-formation the old tenants asserted their rights and commenced cultivation, therefore their right of occupancy had been maintained, and the plaintiff's suit was liable to dismissal. 4. Now the right of occupancy is one which, as defined by the Statute, is to be maintained by regular and punctual payment of the rent payable. It is not sufficient ...
Tag this Judgment!Mungol Prashad Dichit Vs. Shama Kanto Lahory Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal708
Morris, J.1. Several questions have been raised, arising out of proceedings taken between the last and the next preceding application for execution, that is, between the 5th September 1874 and the 22nd September 1877. But the determination of these is unnecessary if, as has been pointed out, the decree which it is sought to execute was dead on the 5th September 1874 by reason of the previous application having been made on the 26th July 1871. It is, however, pointed out that the respondent, debtor, made an acknowledgment of the judgment-debt on the 30th November 1871, when he asked for two months' postponement of the sale in execution. And a contention is raised that this is such an acknowledgment in writing of the debt as is contemplated in Section 20, Act IX of 1871, and that, consequently, a new period of limitation runs from the date on which it is signed. The application for execution made on the 5th September 1874 brings this case under the provisions of Act IX of 1871 (see Secti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›