Kolkata Court March 1879 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.
Afatoolla Sirdar Vs. Dwarka Nath Moitry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal814
Jackson, J.1. It is not stated that evidence was given of any special custom in this point.2. The sale of the tenure would apparently pass all that was growing upon the land, unless the growing crops were excepted by the notification of sale, or else a custom was proved that the outgoing ryot should have the crops, subject to a payment for use and occupation of the land while they remained on the ground. If such a custom with tender of the proper amount was proved, the plaintiff might be entitled to recover, but otherwise he would not appear to have laid the foundation for a claim of damages, as the defendant merely cut down crops growing on his own land....
Badan Bebajea Vs. Kala Chand Bebajea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal823
Jackson, J.1. It appears to us that this case should have been dealt with under Chap. xix, and Section 648 has no reference to it....
Rampria Debea Vs. Gunnes Chunder Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal53
Mitter, J.1. The defendant in this case is owner of some 800 bigas contained in 56 plots scattered over four villages within the plaintiff's patni taluks, The plaintiff, considering himself entitled to enhance the rent of the lands in the possession of the defendant, served him with a notice, and the first point we have to consider in this appeal is, whether the notice is such as the law requires.2. The Courts below differ upon this point, the Subordinate Judge being of opinion that the notice is bad because it does not give any information to the ryot as to the ground of enhancement applicable to each of the plots in dispute.3. The District Judge considers that the notice is sufficient, in that it gave the defendant the information to which he was entitled by law, viz., that enhanced rent was claimed for the ensuing year, and that it was claimed on all the grounds mentioned in the law, and he goes on to say--'I think the object of the law is sufficiently fulfilled (the object not bein...
Fuzludeen Khan Vs. Fakir Mahomed Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal336
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case we are unable to agree with the learned Judge of this Court. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the rent of a jote from the ryot-defendant, upon the ground, that he had purchased the estate of the defendant's landlord. The plaintiff's purchase, as to which there was no dispute, was effected by a deed of sale dated in Cheit 1282 (March 1876), which was duly registered. It is found as a fact by the lower Court, that for sometime previous to the execution of this deed, the defendant had been the tenant of the property under a kabuliat, which he had given to the father of the plaintiff's vendor, and had since paid rent to the latter in accordance with the kabuliat. The defendant's case was, that, by another deed of sale, dated in Pous 1282 (December 1875), two months prior to the plaintiff's deed, the landlord had conveyed the same estate to him, the defendant; but this bill of sale was not registered.2. Upon these facts the District Judge h...
Nownit Lal and Bunwari Lal Vs. Rai NaraIn Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal810
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this case is quite undistinguishable in principle from that of Deendayal Lal v. Jugdeep Narain Singh (4 L.R., In. Ap., 247; S.C.I.L.R., 3 Cal, 198). It was there held by the Privy Council that, where a decree has been obtained against the father of a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, his interest in the family property could be sold under the decree, and that what the purchaser bought under such a sale was the right which the father had as a member of the family to a partition, by means of which the extent of his share would be ascertained, and that share would then become the purchaser's property.2. The only difference between that case and the present is, that here the member of the joint family against whom the decree has been obtained, is not the father of the family, but a son; and an attempt has been made by Baboo Chunder Madhub Ghose to show that the son is not in the same position as the father, because he would not, except under...
Akram Ally and anr. Vs. Bollye Satee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal961
Birch, J.1. The plaintiffs' case is, that they as mokudums of a 13-anna 6-gunda share of a jalkar have demanded an enhanced rent for their share of a fishery from the defendants after serving a notice calling upon them to pay an extra rent for the fishery; that the defendants refusing to pay any increase of rent continue to fish as before. The plaintiff's, therefore, sue in the terms of the plaint to dispossess the defendants. The defendants' answer is, that they have acquired a right of occupancy in the jalkar, and cannot be deprived of their right.2. The Munsif points out that no question of right of occupancy can arise in the case, but he says that, as the tenants have received notice to pay a higher rent, and been informed that if they decline the plaintiffs' terms they must cease to fish in the jalkar; there is nothing to prevent the plaintiff's from recovering khas possession. In appeal before the District Judge, the main objection raised was that, as the plaintiffs were only pro...
Greender Chunder Ghose Vs. Mackintosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal897
White, J.1. This suit is instituted by persons who are creditors of the estate of Aushootosh Day, on behalf of themselves and all the other creditors of that estate against the defendant Mackintosh and also against Charoo, Surruth, and Nobinmoney, the executors and executrix of Aushootosh Day's will. Its object is to follow in the hands of the defendant Mackintosh certain property which originally formed portion of the testator's estate, and was mortgaged to Mackintosh, partly by the defendants Charoo and Surruth, and partly by them and the other defendant Nobinmoney Dossee. The plaintiff's allege that Mackintosh took the mortgages with notice that certain suits were pending in which they and others claimed to be creditors of Aushootosh Day, and also with notice that the debts due from his estate were unpaid, and that the mortgage money was intended to be applied by the borrowers to their own private purposes and not in a due course of administration.2. The prayer of the plaint has a w...
Umbicka Churn Goopta Vs. Madhub Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal870
Mitter, J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of 7 1/2 bighas of land upon the allegation that the defendants who held it as the plaintiff's tenants were served with a notice by which their tenancy was determined. The Munsif decreed the claim, but the lower appellate Court has reversed that decree upon the ground that the tenancy of the defendants alleged by the plaintiff was not proved, and that, on the other hand, the defendants had established adverse possession of the disputed land for more than twelve years.2. The plaintiff has preferred this special appeal, and contends that notwithstanding his failure to prove that the defendants held the disputed land as his tenants, he is entitled to a decree upon the other facts found by the Courts below.3. These facts are as follows: The land in dispute was part and parcel of a tenure of 11 bighas 15 cottahs held by the defendants under one Rungomoni Dabee, the patnidar of lot Senapoti Mehal, Some time before 1864, the rent payable by th...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Hori Dasi Dabi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal228
Jackson, J.1. Before disposing seriatim of the several appeals, it may be convenient to state our opinion of what the testator intended by his will to effect.2. When Behari Lall made the will in question, he was a man scarcely past the prime of life, quite capable of having further issue, but for the moment having no living child, nor any living descendant except a daughter's daughter of very tender years.3. If he then died intestate, his estate would go to his widow, and on her death, his daughter's daughter would not take, but his brother Roop Lall if then living would be the heir. This he was determined to prevent by the exercise of testamentary power.4. In carrying out this purpose, he provided firstly for the possible case of issue being born to himself.5. In that event, he directed that such sons, sons's sons, or son's grandsons surviving him, should take according to Hindu law (cls. 2 and 4).6. On failure of them, he directed that his wife should take according to Hindu law and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›