Kolkata Court January 1880 Judgments
isan Chunder Banerjee Vs. Luchun Gope
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal699
Jackson, J.1. We think there can be no doubt upon this question. It appears that, by the second schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, Chap. xlvii, which deals with review of judgment, is extended absolutely to Courts of Small Causes constituted under Act XI of 1865. It is also true, as the Judge of the Small Cause Court points out, that Section 21 of Act XI of 1865 has not been repealed. What will be the effect of the simultaneous retention of that section with reference to new trials, is a question which we are not at present called upon to determine. The Legislature unequivocally expresses its intention that the procedure in review of judgment shall be applicable to Courts of Small Causes, and if so, the Small Cause Court is of course at liberty to entertain an application of that sort and in so doing must proceed strictly under the rules contained in that chapter, and the procedure relating to new trials under Section 21 of Act XI is not to be mixed up with those rules....
Tag this Judgment!Sham Kishore Mundle Vs. Shoshibhoosun Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal707
Wilson, J.1. There is no doubt that the practice should be settled, because the procedure is new, and it is very important that there should be a settled practice. I do not entertain any doubt as to what practice is most convenient and most in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code.2. The first section of the Code which deals with interrogatories is Section 121, which says: 'Any party may, at any time, by leave of the Court, deliver through the Court interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite party.' Now what that section contemplate is, I think, first, leave to interrogate; and secondly, the service of the interrogatories through the Court. Following on that section, we have a rule of Court which makes the matter a little more clear. That rule is as follows: 'When interrogatories are ordered by the Court to be delivered under Section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure, two copies of each set of interrogatories shall be tendered to the Registrar, who, when the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Honooman Sahay and ors. Vs. Pursid NaraIn Sing and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal845
Pontifex, J.1. This case is one more instance of the plentiful crop of litigation which has sprung out of the decisions in the reported cases of Gridharee Lall (L.R., 1 I.A., 321; S.C. 14 B.L.R., 187) and Deendyall Lall (L.R., 4 I.A., 247; S.C. I.L.R., 3 Cal., 198).2. The circumstances of the case are as follows:Radhay Kishen, the father of plaintiff's Nos. 1 and 2, and husband of plaintiff No. 3, by two bonds, purported to mortgage that which was in fact ancestral estate. The family was governed by the Mitakshara, and at the dates of the mortgages both the sons were alive; and it has been stated that one at least of them was of age. From the judgment of the Munsif it would appear that the earlier of the two bonds recited, as a necessity for raising the loan secured by it, the performance of the koruj ceremony of Kulu Ram, a deceased member of the family. And from the same judgment it would appear that, on the face of it, the later of the two bonds purported to be executed as security ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Loll Seal and ors. Vs. Debendronath Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal679
Wilson, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are the successors in title to one Mutty Loll Seal, who died in 1854; and as such they seek to recover a house, of which the defendants are in possession.2. The defendants are the sons and widow of Sumbhoonath Mullick, who died some twenty years ago.3. The house in question was formerly the property of Mutty Loll Seal Sumbhoonath Mullick was a friend or dependant of Mutty Loll Seal, and was, for many years, the object of his bounty. Some thirty years ago, several years before the death of Mutty Loll Seal, Sumbhoonath entered into possession of the house, and from that time the defendants have been in exclusive occupation.4. So far there is no dispute. Then the case of the plaintiffs is set out in paras. 11 and 12 of the plaint:11.--'The said Sumbhoonath Mullick, who had been an old dependent of the plaintiffs' father, Mutty Loll Seal, was permitted by the said Mutty Loll Seal to occupy the house and premises No. 69, Chunam Gully, without paying ...
Tag this Judgment!Bussicklol Mudduck Vs. Lokenath Kurmokar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal689
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit by an ejected tenant of land in Calcutta against his landlord, in which he claims to be entitled to remove buildings alleged to have been erected on the premises in question by him, or his predecessors, or to be paid compensation in respect of them.2. The case came on for settlement of issues on the 8th instant, and the issues were settled accordingly. The first issue is: 'By what law are the rights of the parties governed,'--i.e., by Hindu law or English.3. If the case is governed by English law, then it was admitted that the plaintiff's claim fails; if by Hindu law, then there remain other issues to be tried. This question was argued by Mr. Bonnerjee for the plaintiff, and Mr. Mitter for the defendant and I took time to consider my judgment.4. It appears from the pleadings on both sides that the land in question is in Calcutta, and that the tenancy was one created by express contract. The parties concerned are, and throughout have been, Hindu. By what law ...
Tag this Judgment!Soorjee Kanto Roy Chowdhry Vs. Woomesh Chunder Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal713
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff appealed, and his appeal was heard by the Judge of Jessore. In that Court the plaintiff appears to have relied upon a judicial interpretation of Section 27 of Act VIII, but the Judge concurred with the Court below in holding that that did not apply to Section 29. The Judge then cited Act I of 1868 of the Indian Council. That Act, which is commonly known by the name of the General Clauses Act, is in terms an Act for shortening the language used in the Acts of the Governor-General in Council, and is therefore not applicable to the Acts of the Bengal Legislature. The Judge considered that it was 'legal and equitable to accept the guidance of the superior;' but I am not aware of any rule of law or equity, which extends an interpretation clause of the superior legislature, which is limited to the enactments of that legislature, to those of another legislature, though it may be subordinate. The Judge went on to say: 'It is also to be noted that the 30th Cheyt, 128...
Tag this Judgment!GunganaraIn Sirkar and anr. Vs. Sreenath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal915
Jackson, J.1. Upon the precise question raised in this appeal, no previous ruling has been brought to our notice. The plaintiffs are some of several co-sharers who, indeed, owned much the larger portion of the estate. The defendant Sreenath holds land under all the co-sharers, and he previously paid rent to the plaintiffs according to the shares which they from time to time claimed; but in the present suit they claimed a larger share than they appear to have received before,--that is, they claimed fourteen annas, whereas in previous years they obtained decrees for thirteen and-a-half annas, for eleven annas eighteen gandas, and for thirteen and three-fourth annas. In this state of the facts the Judge observes: 'It still remains for the plaintiffs to prove that their share is fourteen annas;' and further on: 'It seems to me, therefore, that the plaintiffs having failed to prove that they have been collecting a specific fourteen annas share of the rent before, cannot succeed in the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Doyaram Jana Vs. Bissonath Dinda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal738
White, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Judge of Midnapore, granting letters of administration with the will annexed to Doyaram Jana. The will purports to be the will of one Soonder Jana, who died on the 29th of May 1878. It is dated and alleged to have boon executed on the day previous to his death.2. The grant was opposed by the present objector, who is the appellant before us.3. Evidence has been given of the execution of the will by six witnesses, of whom five wore attesting witnesses to, and one was the writer of the will.4. The objector, on the other hand, produced five witnesses; but their evidence, of course, is of a negative character.5. The Judge considered that there was ample direct evidence of the execution of the will, and that the witnesses for the applicant wore fairly trustworthy.6. The Judge adds--'There are some discrepancies as to the order in which the signatures (that is, the signatures of the attesting witnesses with reference to the execution of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Kumar Roy Vs. NobIn Chunder Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal585
White and Mitter, JJ.1. The third point as stated by the Small Cause Court Judge virtually raises all the questions upon which the opinion of this Court is sought.2. The third point is whether, upon the facts found, the plaintiff is entitled to recover.3. The facts found are these:- The plaintiff, who has not been admitted and enrolled as a muktear, and consequently is not in possession of a certificate authorizing him to act as a muktear, was employed by the defendant for the purpose of looking after a regular appeal which has been preferred by the defendant and also for giving instructions to the pleaders in connection with that appeal. The remuneration for the services was fixed by agreement at Rs. 100. The services have been performed. The plaintiff sues for the Rs. 100. The defendant resists payment on the ground that, by virtue of Section 13 of Act XX of 1865, the plaintiff is incapable of maintaining a suit for the agreed reward. Section 13 of the Act cited enacts, amongst other...
Tag this Judgment!Premchand Dutt Vs. Koonjbehari Dhur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal684
Jackson, J.1. We are unable to give the effect to this will which has been given by the lower Appellate Court. The Additional Judge seems to consider that there was nothing to limit or affect the language of the instrument except what he calls the adoption clause. He appears to have left entirely out of sight the common rule of Hindu law, which is that, in respect of gifts by a husband to his wife, she takes immoveables only for her life, and has no power of alienation, while her dominion over moveable property is absolute. This rule is stated in a recent work, the Tagore Law Lectures for 1878, of which the author, Dr. Gurudas Banerjee, is the vakeel for the respondent. We understand it to be a rule of law, well established in this Court, that a Hindu wife takes, by a will of her husband, no more absolute right over the property bequeathed, than she would take over such property, if conferred upon her by gift during the life-time of her husband; and that, whether in respect of a gift o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›