Kolkata Court February 1881 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.
Huro Prosad Roy Vs. Womatara Debee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal263
McDonell, J.1. This is a suit for enhancement of rent. The defendant in a tenant, under the plaintiff, of a holding, which originally consisted of 1,202 bighas, and the rent of which was originally fixed at Rs. 641-1-1. Three grounds of enhancement were set out in the plaint. The first ground is, that the quantity of land held by the defendant is more than that for which rent was formerly paid. He says, that the quantity of land is now 1,900 instead of 1,202 bighas. The second ground is, that the productive powers of the land have increased; and the third ground is, that the value of the produce has increased.2. As to the first two grounds there is no question in the present appeal, and the third ground is the only one with which we have to deal. That prices have, within the last twenty, thirty, or forty years, increased considerably in these provinces is a matter as to which few reasonable people have any doubt. At the same time, in any particular case, it is necessary that evidence o...
Surbomangala Dabi and anr. Vs. Goluk Chunder Mahinta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal711
McDonell, J.1. We think that the order of the Subordinate Judge in this case ought not to be interfered with, though we do not agree with the reasons upon which he has based his decision. The property, Bazzapti Mehal Kulliar Chur, belonged to the Judgment-debtors. They mortgaged it to one Kalachand Mahinta. Kalachand brought a suit upon the mortgage-bond and obtained a decree, which was a personal decree against the judgment-debtors, and also a decree against the mortgaged property. Meanwhile the mortgaged property was brought to sale under the provisions of Section 16 of Beng. Act VII of 1868. That sale was in all respects the same as a sale in execution under the Code of Civil Procedure; in other words, it was a sale of the right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtors. The right, title, and interest of the judgement-debtors was, therefore, the equity of redemption. The sale under Beng. Act VII 1868 took place on the 26th of July 1878; and the appellants in the case became, eith...
Goburdhon Lall Vs. Singessur Dutt Koer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal52
Mitter, J.1. Who, after stating the facts as above, continued.---Upon these findings of fact by the Subordinate Judge he framed the following judgment:It is hereby declared that only four-eighth-anna of Nirpur and 7/8th-an 'share of Chuck Ibrahim are liable to be sold in satisfaction of the defendant, 'decree against Chundermun Koer, dated 20th July 1875. The remaining portions of four annas share and seven annas share of those estates belong to the 'plaintiffs, and their shares should be separated from Chundermun's share, and 'would be equally partitioned between themselves.' We think that this decree is erroneous, because it seems to us that there could not be a partition between a person who is already dead and his sons. No doubt, according to the case of Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh (L. R., 6 I.A., 88), if the property under attachment had been sold, and if it had been proved that the decree was a personal decree against the father, and that the debt for which the decree ...
Mano Mohun Ghose and ors. Vs. Mothura Mohun Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal225
Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca. The suit was brought by the appellants to recover certain chur lands, as being a re-formation on the site of their Chur Rajapore. There is no question that the plaintiffs' father (whose heirs they are) was the owner and in possession of Chur Rajapore until it was diluviated; that the various defendants, or their predecessors in title, were interested in various churs adjacent to Chur Rajapore; that Rajapore and other adjacent churs were, at dates which are disputed diluviated; that re-formations have subsequently taken place; that, from time to time, as re-formation took place, attempts have been made by the parties interested to show that portions of the re-formations were on the site of their own churs; and that, in 1875, disputes having arisen about some re-formed land, the Deputy Magistrate attached certain lands, the extent of which is disputed, leaving the parties interested to sue in a Civil Court. T...
Sudisht Lal Vs. Mussamut Sheobarat Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal245
Sir M. E. Smith.1. This is an action brought by Sudisht Lai, a mahajun carrying on his business at Mozufferpore, against Mussamut Sheobarat Koer, to recover a sum of Rs. 23,470 and interest, upon the footing of a stated and, settled account. The plaint is based entirely upon an account which, it alleges, had been settled, not by the defendant herself, but by her husband, Ajudhya Pershad, who, it is said, had authority from her to state and settle accounts. In the outset it may be noticed that no evidence was given of the items of the account so as to establish an indebtedness independently of the account stated. This omission seems to have been intentional, for the plaintiff himself, and two of his gomashtas, who might have given that evidence if a debt really existed, were not called.2. The circumstances which preceded the action may be shortly stated. Ram Dyal Misser, who is now dead, carried on a banking business in the same place as the plaintiff, at Mozufferpore. He died in the ye...
Sashi Bhuson Biswas and ors. Vs. Kanai Lall Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal777
McDonell, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows: One Romoni Dasi, the widow of Digambar Mondol, borrowed Rs, 2,000 from the ancestor of the defendants in the present case upon the mortgage of a certain property. This money was not paid, and the mortgagee brought a suit against Romoni Dasi on the 17th May 1872, to enforce the mortgage lien against the mortgaged property. While that suit was pending, Romoni Dasi died; and on the 10th July 1873, the mortgagee applied to have the plaintiffs in the present suit substituted as defendants in the place of Romoni Dasi. In that petition the mortgagee stated, that the present plaintiffs, Sashi Bhuson Biswas and others, were the heirs of Romoni Dasi. These persons were at that time minors, and Bhoopal Chunder Biswas was their father and guardian. Notice was served upon Bhoopal Chunder Biswas, and he, Bhoopal, came in and filed a petition on behalf of the minors.2. In that petition it was distinctly asserted that the minors were not th...
Buddree Doss and ors. Vs. Ralli and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal678
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the first question should be answered in the negative.2. As to the second question, we think that the week allowed for recleaning the seed commenced from the 10th July, when the refraction was found to be thirteen per cent. The time occupied by the plaintiff in recleaning was only two days; but as they did not succeed in reducing the refraction to the rate of six per cent., the defendants had a right to reject the seed. It is clear that the plaintiffs were not entitled by the terms of the contract to any further time to re-clean it again.3. The defendants are entitled to the costs of this reference.4. Attorney for the Plaintiffs: Mr. Camell.5. Attorneys for the Defendants: Messrs. Sanderson & Co....
In Re: Shumsher Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal624
Cunningham, J.1. We think that the appeal must be dismissed, on the ground that there is no sufficient reason shown for calling in question the deliberate conclusion at which the Magistrate has arrived.2. With regard to the point that the sentence required the confirmation of the Sessions Judge, we think that the words of Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be construed to refer to cases in which the sentence of imprisonment is a sentence of upwards of three years, and to leave aside any sentence the Magistrate may pass as to fine or whipping.3. We, therefore, think that it is unnecessary for the sentence in this case to be confirmed by the Sessions Judge.4. The appeal is dismissed....
Kedarnauth Doss and anr. Vs. Protab Chunder Doss and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal626
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that the judgment of the Court below should be affirmed, upon the single ground that the plaintiff has not shown who is the common ancestor through whom he claims title to the property in question from Nobocoomar Dhara.2. The case comes before us under rather peculiar circumstances. The original plaintiff, Kedarnauth Doss, claimed as the sole heir of Nobocoomar Dhara; but it turned out at the trial that if the plaintiff should make out his title to the property, his mother, the witness Koylashmoney Dossee, would be entitled to a share of it. Upon this it was objected by the defendants' counsel that her name ought to be added as a co-plaintiff, and an order was made by the Court to that effect, although the plaint does not appear to have been amended.3. The decree of the Court below being then given for the defendants with costs, the plaintiff Kedarnauth did not pay the costs; consequently he has been made an insolvent by the defendants, and the Official As...
Zabunnessa Khatun Vs. Abdool Futteh Moulvie
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal631
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The only material question which we are called upon to decide in this appeal, is as to the maintenance. The plaintiff's right to the dower is hardly disputed.2. Mr. Piffard certainly contended, in the first place, that the defendant was placed at a great disadvantage at the trial in consequence of being obliged to conduct his own case; and urged that the Court should allow him a new trial upon payment of costs. But there is clearly no ground for this contention. The defendant has never applied for a new trial in the Court below, and any disadvantage under which he has laboured is due to his own default.3. With regard to the question of maintenance, Mr. Piffard does not object to the amount of the monthly allowance; but he contends that the decree is erroneous in two respects: first, that no order ought to have been made for past maintenance; and second, that it should have been made payable, not during the plaintiff's natural life, but only during the continuance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »