Kolkata Court April 1880 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.
Ganesh Lal Tewari Vs. ShamnaraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal213
Sir M. E. Smith.1. This was an application by Ganesh Lai Tewari, the appellant, as the representative of Maddan Mohan Tewari and Kalipershad Tewari, who had obtained a decree against the respondents, to execute that decree so far as relates to the recovery of the mesne profits of a mouza called Kukurha awarded by it. The judgment is dated the 2nd of June 1860, and was the result of an action which had been brought by the Tewaris against the predecessors of the respondents. The facts are shortly these: Perhlad Sen, who was the Raja of Ramnagar, executed, on the 23rd December 1851, a zur-i-peshgi mortgage to the Tewaris of certain mouzas including Mouza Kukurha, for a sum of Rs. 19,453. Shortly after the mortgage, one Binda Lal, the predecessor of the respondents, set up a mokurari lease of Mouza Kukurha, which, as he affirmed, had been granted to him by the Raja prior to the zur-i-peshgi mortgage. The suit was brought by the Tewaris to set aside that mokurari, on the ground that it was ...
Ramnidhee Manjee Vs. Parbutty Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal823
White, J.1. This suit was brought by a lady, Parbutty Dassee (the respondent before us), for khas possession of certain land or for obtaining a kabuliat by assessment of rent at a rate on that land.2. The land appears to be land which has become annexed by gradual accretion to a jote in the occupation of the defendant (the appellant before us). The precise nature of the defendant's tenure does not appear, but it seems to have been accepted in the case that he held a tenure under the plaintiff of a permanent character. The land accreted gradually, and I am of opinion that the accretion was annexed to the jote of the defendant, but liable to the payment of rent to the plaintiff on its being shown that he (the defendant) was, in the language of Reg. XI of 1825, by his engagement with the plaintiff or her predecessors, or by established usage, subject to an increase of rent for the land so annexed.3. The first objection taken by the defendant is, that he was not duly served with notice, an...
Toponidhee Dhirj Gir GosaIn Vs. Sreeputty Sahanee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal832
White, J.1. The appellant, who is the plaintiff in the Court below, has brought this suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, against the respondent, who is the defendant in the Court below, to be confirmed in the possession of certain lakhiraj resumed, and other lands in Mouza Boulang, and a cutcherry-house there; and also to recover possession of a considerable amount: of other property, of which he states that he was dispossessed on the 18th of June 1868. He alleges that all the lands and property, the subject of the suit, were the ancestral and self-acquired property of a certain Mohunt Toponidhee Jugrup, who died on the 13th of Assar, 1274 (corresponding with 27th September, 1866), and he claims the whole property on the ground that he is the chela and heir of the deceased Mohunt. He values the entire property for the purposes of the suit at upwards of a lakh of rupees.2. The defendant in his written statement denies the title of the plaintiff as chela and heir of th...
Mohindrobhoosun Biswas Vs. Shosheebhoosun Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal882
Wilson, J.1. I do not think that there is any sufficient reason for making the order asked for. The application is under Section 32 of the Civil Procedure Code. The words of the section are as follows: 'The Court may, on or before the first hearing, upon the application of either party, and on such terms as the Court thinks just, order that the name of any party, whether as plaintiff or as defendant, improperly joined, be struck out; and the Court may, at any time, either upon or without such application, and on such terms as the Court thinks just, order that any plaintiff be made a defendant, or that any defendant be made a plaintiff, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or as defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the suit, be added.'2. In the first place this does not contemplate any application by the perso...
NaraIn Coomary Vs. Ramkrishna Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal864
White, J.1. This was a suit brought by the Dowager Ranee of Burdwan against a tenant, with whom she alleged that a verbal agreement had been made, under which he took in zemindari certain land in Assar 1281 (June-July 1874). The suit was for arrears of rent for the years 1282 and 1283 (1875 and 1876).2. The defendant, who is the respondent before us, did not deny that he was her tenant, but disputed the extent of his holding and the rate of rent.3. The Munsif passed a decree in favour of the Ranee.4. On appeal that decree was reversed by the Judge of Cuttack, not upon the merits, but on the ground that a certain document, which was contained in a book belonging to the zemindari of this lady, and which related to the jammabandi of the particular district in which the respondent held the land in question, amounted to a lease or an agreement for a lease, and not being stamped or registered could not be used in evidence.5. We have had the document translated, and it appears to be in the fo...
In Re: in the Matter of the Petition of Bhekraj Koeri Vs. Gendh Lal Te ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal878
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Upon the assumption contained in the question referred, we are of opinion that the Court has power, under proper circumstances, to set aside the sale, notwithstanding the Judicial Commissioner's order.2. Upon this opinion being pronounced by the Full Bench, the case was sent back to the Division Bench to determine, 1st, whether the requirements of Section 290 were, or were not, essential to the validity of the sale; and, 2ndly, assuming this to be so, whether, under the circumstances of the case, the sale ought to be set aside; but upon the matter coming on again before the Division Bench, the case was, at the suggestion of the Court, compromised by the parties....
Khetter Chunder Mookerjee Vs. Khetter Paul Sreeterutno
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal886
Wilson, J.1. I think that the document is admissible in evidence. There are two questions to be considered first, proof of the contents of the document tendered; secondly, proof of execution. Section 65 of the Evidence Act deals with the first question, and this case comes under Clause (c), which provides that secondary evidence may be given 'when the original' has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time.' The will in question is shown to have been lost, and therefore its contents may be proved by secondary evidence. Section 90 deals with the second question; it provides that, 'where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of a...
PepIn Vs. Chunder Seekur Mookerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal811
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit by the assignor against the assignees of a lease, in which the plaintiff seeks to be indemnified in respect of money which he has been compelled to pay by reason of the defendants' failure to perform the covenants in the lease. (His Lordship then stated the facts of the case, and continued). Therefore the present suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants the sum recovered from him by the Administrator-General, together with his own costs of defence, amounting to Rs. 1,028-9. The case came before Mr. Justice Pontifex for settlement of issues. That learned Judge held, that the plaint disclosed a good cause of action, on the authority of Moule v. Garrett (L.R., 7 Ex., 101), and the following issues were settled:1st.--Does limitation apply2nd.--Have the defendants, or either of them, by any and what payments to the original lessors, absolved themselves or himself to any and what extent from liability to the plaintiff3rd.--Are the defendant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›