Kolkata Court May 1881 Judgments

Kalytara ChowdhraIn Vs. Ramcoomar Gopta

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal466

Prinsep, J.1. Having found in concurrence with the lower Court that a copy of the proclamation of sale was not affixed to some conspicuous place within the property attached and to be sold, and that the very inadequate price realized may be fairly attributed to this omission, it becomes necessary to consider the point taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant that this was a formality not required by the law then in force. The proceedings were taken on the 30th July 1879, and were therefore to be regulated in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act XII of 1879. Section 289, as it now stands amended by Act XII, is to the following effect:The proclamation shall be made in manner prescribed by Section 274 on the spot where the property is attached, and a copy thereof shall be fixed up in the Court-house; and in the case of land paying revenue to Government, also in the Collector's office.2. It is contended by Mr. H. Bell, that the manner in which the proclamatio...

Brojendro Lall Roy and ors. Vs. Nobodeep Chunder Chowdhry

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal406

Pontifex, J.1. The compensation case under the Land Acquisition Act, out of which appeal No. 14 of 1879 arises, was tried by Mr. Verner, who had to decide as to the manner in which the sum of Rs. 99 should be apportioned amongst certain persons claiming to be joint mourosidars. Mr. Verner decided that only one of these persons was entitled as mourosidar to compensation for the particular land taken under the Act in that case; and he directed that the amount should be paid to him. Against that decision, appeal No. 14 of 1879 has been preferred. The cases of compensation, out of which appeals Nos. 121, 122, 123, and 124 of 1879 arise, were tried by Mr. Tottenham for apportioning compensation in those four eases, amounting respectively to Rs. 9, 18, 20 and 37, between the same mourosidars as claimants. He came to the conclusion that the person to whom Mr. Verner had directed, in appeal No. 14 of 1879, that the compensation should be paid, did not prove his exclusive title to the money, bu...

Shanks and ors. Vs. Savage

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal177

Wilson, J.1. Such adjournments are most inconvenient, and would not be listened to for a moment in England. I will grant an adjournment for a fortnight, on condition that the plaintiffs bear the whole costs of the hearing....

Obhoy Churn Coondoo and anr. Vs. Golam Ali, Alias Nocoury Meah

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal410

Pontifex, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case having obtained a decree in the Court of the Second Munsif of Barisal, attached certain property within the jurisdiction of the Second Munsif. That attachment was made in September 1877. But one Golam Ali had obtained a decree in the Court of the Additional Munsif of Barisal, and had, under such decree, directly attached the same property prior to the plaintiffs' attachment, viz., in August 1877. A sale took place under the plaintiffs' attachment first, and the plaintiffs purchased on the 4th December in execution of their own decree. Subsequently, a sale took place on the 6th December under Golam Ali's attachment, and he purchased in execution of his decree. The plaintiff afterwards brought several rent-suits against the ryots occupying the land, and Golam Ali intervened in those suits. Two of those suits have now come on appeal before us, and the question to be decided in these appeals is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover rent ...

Sourobinee Dabee Vs. Uma Sundari Dabee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal288

Cunningham, J.1. In this case the widow and heiress of the late Paramata Lall Gossami sues his mother, who is also administratrix with the will annexed, praying that the administratrix be directed to make over to her the estate of her deceased husband, to render an account of the administration, and to pay what sums may, on taking such accounts, be found due to the deceased's estate. On the part of the defendant it is contended, that, by the testator's will, the defendant was placed in charge of his property; that the intention of the will was to oblige the plaintiff to adopt, and to exclude her from management of the estate and from her rights as heiress; and that she is, accordingly, not entitled to the possession of the property.2. The will in dispute directs, that the widow being enciente, if a son be born, the mother should be guardian.3. His Lordship then set out the will as above, and continued;--4. Letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed were obtained by the m...

Doorga NaraIn Sen Vs. Ram Lall Chhutar

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal330

Pontifex, J.1. A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of these, appeals, on the ground that, under Section 102 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869, no second appeal would lie in these cases. We think that this objection must prevail. The facts of the case are---that two persons, the plaintiff Doorga Narain and one Banimadhub, were contesting with one another as to who was rightfully entitled to the property in which the defendants had tenures and both of them brought rent suits against the tenants. These rent suits came first before the Subordinate Judge, and afterwards before the District Judge. Subsequently to the institution of those rent suits, Doorga Narain brought a suit against Banimadhub to establish his title, and whilst that suit was pending, the District Judge allowed the rent cases to stand over, thinking he might decide them in accordance with the decision which might be arrived at in the title suit. He decided the suit between Doorga Narain and Banimadhub in Banimadhub's ...

Shama Soondary Vs. Hurro Soondary and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Morris, J.1. The plaintiff, as a member of a partnership concern, brings this suit against her co-partners and certain persons, who have acted as servants of the concern, to obtain from them certain account papers which she specifies. She estimates the loss arising from the defendants not rendering these accounts to her at Rs. 4,000, but she values the suit at Rs. 10 only, as she seeks to obtain a simple declaratory decree, and intimates her intention of bringing a 1 further suit for account alter she has received the account papers which she requires.2. The first Court framed certain issues, none of which had reference to the valuation of the suit, and finally gave a partial decree in favour of the plaintiff. Against this judgment the defendants appealed, and their memorandum of appeal was engrossed on a stamp of like valuation. The District Judge, on taking up the appeal, was of opinion that the plaint bere an inadequate stamp, and under the proviso in the 1st clause of Section 12 of...

Golam Ali Vs. Kali Krishna Thakur

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal479

Pontifex, J.1. I am of opinion that the accretion, which, under Reg. XI of 1825, Section 4, Clause 1, must be considered an increment to the defendant's tenure, should be governed by the terms and conditions applicable to the parent tenure as provided in the kabuliat under which such parent tenure is held.2. The defendant having admitted his liability to pay some rent, the question to be decided is, what construction should be placed on the words 'increase of rent to which he may be justly liable' contained in that Regulation.3. The use of the word increase seems to show that consideration is to be given to the rent reserved on the parent tenure. If rent was assessable without reference to the rent reserved on the parent tenure, then I should have expected it to have been expressed as follows:---'The accretion shall not be exempt from the payment of rent which may justly be assessed upon it.'4. Supposing a perpetual tenure had been created at a pepper com rent, without any salami or bo...

Woopendro Nath Sircar and anr. Vs. Brojendranath Mundul

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal346

Pontifex, J.1. In this case the appellants are the judgment debtors, and they sought under Section 311 to set aside a sale made under a mortgage decree on the ground of irregularity, alleging that they had sustained substantial injury by reason of that irregularity, the full price for the property not having been obtained. The plaintiff in the suit in which the property was sold was a mortgagee, and he obtained leave to bid, and purchased two lots at the sale.2. Now it appears that his uncle Radhamohun, who is joint in estate and lives in commensality with him, had been appointed by the Court of Wards the manager of one of the infant defendants; and this purchase by the plaintiff-holder, was in fact a purchase for the benefit of the joint 'family, as is not denied by the pleader for the decree-holder. Now some evidence was read before us, showing that there was irregularity with respect to one of 'these lots, in publishing the proclamation of sale on the premises, and that the full pri...

Reasut HosseIn and anr. Vs. Chorwar Singh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal470

Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are some of the representatives in title of one Bibi Noorun, who granted a (sic)uokurari lease to the defendants' predecessors in title, so long ago as the 25th Bysack 1232.2. The suit is brought to eject the defendants from the property upon the ground that they have been guilty of certain breaches of covenant; and that, consequently, under a condition of re-entry contained in the lease, they have forfeited their tenure. The other representatives of Bibi Noorun's interest, who are co-sharers with the plaintiffs in her estate, are averse to bringing this suit, and consequently they have been made defendants.3. The Court below has dismissed the suit on several grounds, and amongst others, that the defendants have not been guilty of the breaches of covenant with which they were charged.4. From this decision the plaintiffs have appealed; and we think that we may dismiss the appeal upon this one ground only, that one or more of several join...