Kolkata Court August 1879 Judgments
Dulputty Singh Vs. Sikher Chund
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal364
Prinsep, J.1. Although it is not necessary that I should deal with all the points raised in these appeals, I think it my duty to do so, as it is not improbable that these suits, or some of them, will be taken in appeal to Her Majesty's Privy Council. In dealing with these cases, it is preferable that they should be first of all taken up together on points common to all, and that afterwards the facts peculiar to each should be considered.2. The first objection taken is to the validity of the adoption, and whether the plaintiff is the lawfully adopted son of Aree Bhunjun Singh. That Aree Bhunjun was himself a minor, about 15 years of age, when he is said to have adopted the child Dulputty, would not render adoption invalid. Mr. Justice Dwarkanath Mitter (Mr. Justice Paul concurring), in the case of Rajendro Narain Lahoree v. Saroda Soonduree Dabee (15 W.R., 548), has clearly stated the law in this respect, and this case has been quoted with approbation by their Lordships of the Judicial ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Pershad Singh Vs. Kally Dass Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal543
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It has been, in the first place, contended that the mokurari was void under Reg. XLIV of 1793, except for a term of ten years, and that, after the expiration of that term (that is to say, in 1808), the tenancy became an annual one, which terminated in 1875 on the death of the grantee. Reg. XLIV of 1793, Section 2, declares, that 'no zamindar shall grant pottas to ryots or other persons for the cultivation of lands for a term exceeding ten years;' and further, that every potta which has been or may be granted in opposition to such prohibitions, shall be null and void.' This was repealed by Reg. V of 1812, Section 2; but Reg. XLVII of 1803 declares such leases to be null and void, 'only as far as respects the jumma or rent thereby illegally stipulated, but without affecting any other rights which the parties may respectively possess or to which they may be entitled.' These Regulations were followed by Reg. V of 1812, Section 2 of which declared that 'proprietors of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gocool Chunder Bhuttacharjee Vs. Chunder Coomar Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1879
Reported in: (1881)ILR6NULL370(P.C.)
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that the Court below had no power, under the circumstances, to add the name of the administratrix as a co-plaintiff or to give a decree in favour of both the plaintiffs.2. The amendment was made at the trial under Section 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows the Court 'to order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined in the suit, either as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence, before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate and settle all questions involved in the suit, should be added.' That section, so for as the addition of plaintiffs is concerned, appears to me to apply to those cases only where the plaintiff who-has brought the suit is one of the right parties to sue, but some other person., either as being his co-contractor, or otherwise jointly interested with himself, ought to have been joined as a co-plaintiff. I do not think that the section is intended to enab...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakissen Rowra Dakna Vs. Chooneeloll Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal445
Wilson, J.1. This case raises a point upon the construction of the Registration Act of 1877. The suit is brought under Section 77 of the Act; and the plaintiff asks for a decree against the defendant, ordering the registration of a deed of mortgage executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. The due execution of the deed by the defendant on the 27th of September 1878, was clearly proved. It was presented for registration to the Registrar for Calcutta on the 12th of October following. The defendant not appearing to admit execution, a summons was issued against him on the same day. The summons was served personally, and that he perfectly understood its object is clear, because it is in evidence that, when served, he said, 'why have you taken out this summons, I will go personally and register.' He, however, disobeyed the summons, and did not at any time attend to admit execution, but kept out of the way to avoid any further process. I am satisfied that the defendant disobeyed th...
Tag this Judgment!Lee Phee Chuan Vs. Cossim HosseIn Soortu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal477
Pontifex, J.1. The learned Judge in the Court below has held, upon the bill-of-lading in this case, that the shipowners had the right to land the goods, and charge for landing and wharfing; but he has given a decree to the plaintiff on the ground that there was no proof that the goods had been landed at the time when landing and wharfage charges were claimed.2. It appears to me that there is no question in this case that the goods were landed and wharfed by the shipowners, and burnt.3. I am unable to go as far as the learned Judge appears to have gone, and to hold that the shipowners were entitled to claim landing and wharfage charges, whether an opportunity had, or had not, been given to the plaintiff to land the goods himself. But I am of opinion that, for the speedy discharge of their vessel, the shipowners were entitled to land and wharf the goods, though not to charge for landing and wharfing, unless the plaintiff had an opportunity for landing the goods himself.4. Under the words...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Collision Between the ava and the brenhildA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal568
Wilson, J.1. Mr. Woodroffe has raised two objections, in respect of which he, contends that the Advocate-General has not produced sufficient evidence to allow the Court to proceed with this investigation. One of these objections goes, not strictly to the jurisdiction, but to the power of taking effective action. It is, that a copy of the statement of the case upon which the investigation was ordered has not been served upon Whittard, the second mate of the Ava, as required by Section 14 of Act IV of 1875. It is apparent that the report of the special Court is the statement of the case referred to in Section 14. There is nothing on the record to suggest that there was any other statement. It appears that a copy of the report was served upon Whittard. I think, therefore, that a copy of the statement of the case was served in compliance with the terms of Section 14. Then it is suggested that the statement ought to have been furnished before the investigation was ordered; but it seems to m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›