Kolkata Court June 1881 Judgments
Gogun Chunder Ghose Vs. Dhuronidhur Mundul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal616
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this appeal must be dismissed. This suit is brought upon an instalment-bond against three brothers, the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that these three brothers executed the bond jointly. The suit has been dismissed in both Courts and the lower Appellate Court finds, as a fact, that two of the defendants never executed the bond, and that their names were not upon it as it was originally executed; and further, that the plaintiff, in whose custody the bond has been, has forged the names of those two defendants upon the instrument, and attempted to enforce it against them all. Upon that ground the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit.2. So far as I understand him, I think he also means to dismiss it upon another ground--namely, that he cannot trust the evidence even against the one brother; but it is not necessary to consider this point, because we are clearly of opinion that a fraudulent addition, such as has been made to this bond, is sufficien...
Tag this Judgment!Narian Khootia Vs. Lokenath Khootia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal461
Richard Garth, C.J.1. His lordship here stated the facts above set out, and, having gone through the evidence, found that, though there was sufficient proof that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Gobind, yet here was no sufficient proof of the plaintiff's title or possession. His lordship then continued.2. If the case, therefore, had rested on the plaintiff's evidence, we must have dismissed the suit, although not upon the grounds relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner.3. We think, however, that the case n(sic) us be decided upon the admission the defendant No. 1. He admits distinct y (sic) hat a putro putrodik grant was therefore, under Section. 2, the plaintiff was entitled to two years from the 1st October 1877 to bring his suit. He is, therefore, in ample time.4. We have some doubt whether, having regard to the fact that this is a Mitakshara family, and that the plaintiff and defendant appear to be now the sole male members of it, the plaintiff has not a right to a larger share ...
Tag this Judgment!Provabutty Dabee Vs. Mobendro Lall Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal453
Wilson, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is the owner of the house No. 56, Punchanuntollah Lane; the defendant is the owner of the house No. 63 in the same lane; and as to a portion of the two houses, No. 63 stands immediately adjacent to and north of the north wall of No. 56. Trio plaintiff complains that, in the course of certain building operations which took place in No. 63, the defendant has built a wall so as to block up altogether the light to a window of the north wall of No. 56, by which light was afforded to one of the rooms of that house, and has encroached laterally on the soil of No. 56, interfering with the cornice, which has been variously described by the witnesses as a brick band, a string course, and a sailing course.2. The first question is, whether the plaintiff has shown a right to access of light through that window: 2 idly, whether there has been a lateral encroachment; and 3rdly, what is the remedy.3. The first question is of great. (sic)-'rUnce to the plaintiff,...
Tag this Judgment!NobIn Krishna Chakravati Vs. Ram Kumar Chakravati
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal605
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that, for the purposes of this reference, both the eases must be considered as governed by authority in this Court.2. The Full Bench case of Bam Bux Chittanjeo v. Moodhoosoodun Paul Chowdhry (B. L. R., Sup. Vol., 675; s.c, 7 W. R., 377) clearly shows, that, in the case of co-sharers of an estate, where one co-sharer pays the whole revenue, he cannot recover contribution in a Small Cause Court from his co-sharer; co-sharers paying revenue to Government are not co-contractors in any sense, and therefore the principle laid down in the Full Bench case and in other subsequent cases with regard to them, is perfectly plain.3. But the case of joint tenants who hold a tenure under a zemindar or other landlord at an entire rent, seems to fall within a different principle. Such co-tenants are to all intents and purposes co-contractors, as much so as persons who jointly purchase goods or borrow money; and if one should he compelled by the landlord to pay the whole re...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanath Dass and anr. Vs. Boloram Phookun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal677
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case I think I cannot do better than adopt the statement of facts made by the Court below. (His Lordship then stated the facts as above, and continued):The Judge in the Court below has, in my opinion, dealt with the question with great care and judgment. He considers, and I think rightly, that, notwithstanding the observations made in the special appeal by the learned Judges of this Court, he was bound to determine the question, whether the plaintiff had purchased the mortagagee's rights at the execution-sale. He thought, in the first place, that those observations were not necessary for the determination of the special appeal; and in the next place, that the learned Judges had in fact declined to give any definite opinion as to what interest, if any, the present plaintiff had purchased. In this view I quite agree.2. Having then very fully discussed the leading authorities upon the question, and especially the Full Bench judgment in the case of Syud Emam M...
Tag this Judgment!Narsing Dass Vs. NajmooddIn Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal21
Mitter, J.1. This was a suit on a bond for Rs. 1,800, executed by Fahtemul Zohra, widow of Sheikh Eftakharuddin, hypothecating, amongst other properties, one anna fifteen gandas of Jhurja, of which the respondent is in possession under an auction-purchase of the rights of the aforesaid widow made on the 15th August 1877. The mortgage-bond is dated the 28th March 1874.2. It appears that Sheikh Eftakharuddin died between 1868 and 1872, leaving him surviving the aforesaid widow and two sons as his heirs. In the year 1866 he borrowed Rs. 546 by a bond, dated the 18th of October, from a person named Lalla Jha, who obtained a decree for the loan against the aforesaid heirs on the 20th November 1872.3. This decree was reversed by the Judge on the 8th April 1873, but was restored by this Court in Special Appeal on the 20th April 1874.4. It appears that Sheikh Eftakharuddin was possessed of four annas of this mouza, viz., Jhurja. After his death, by a Tukseemnamah, dated the 20th January 1871, ...
Tag this Judgment!Lall Jha Vs. Negroo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal717
Richard Garth, C.J.1. So far as we can see, the District Judge appears to have rejected the doul darkhast, which was offered in evidence in this case, upon insufficient grounds. In the case of Maharaja Luchmissur Singh v. Mussamut Dakho (Ante, p. 708), we decided in a Pull Bench of this Court that a doul darkhast, if it amounted to nothing more than a proposal by a tenant to pay a certain rent for certain land, does not amount to a lease or an agreement for a lease. If it is accepted in writing by the landlord, it is a different thing. In another case-Sped Sufdar Reza v. Amzad All (Ante, p. 703)---which we also decided in a Full Bench, the document was not only a proposal for a lease, but had the word 'granted' signed by the landlord himself upon it. In that case we considered, that if that word was written upon the document in token of the acceptance by the landlord of the tenant's proposal, it would require registration, because it would then amount to a complete offer by the tenant ...
Tag this Judgment!Wahari Lall Singh Vs. Greeman Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal12
Mitter, J.1. This suit was brought by one Wahari Lall Singh, for a declaration that certain deeds of sale, dated the 8th and 18th May 1874, executed by two Hindu widows, Pharichha Koer and Susti Koer, widows of one Balgobind, are void and inoperative as against the plaintiff, he being the presumptive heir to the estate of Balgobind after the death of the last surviving widow, Pharichha Koer. The object of the suit was, further, to have a declaration that the plaintiff, according to Hindu law, is the next reversionary heir to the estate left by the aforesaid Balgobind. The plaintiff alleges that he is the daughter's son of the aforesaid Balgobind by Susti Koer. The suit was brought after the death of Susti Koer against Pharichha Koer, the other widow, and the person in whose favour the aforesaid deeds were executed. It appears, that while this suit was pending, the appellants before us, Greeman Singh and others, intervened, and alleged that, upon the death of Pharichha Koer, they would ...
Tag this Judgment!Chuni Singh and ors. Vs. Hera Mahto and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal633
Maclean, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit, who are the appellants before us, are the proprietors of Mouza Kazibigha, in which the defendants cultivate 16 bighas 11 biswas 6 dhurs. The plaint alleges that this land was formerly held on a bhowli rent, then a cash rent was paid for it for some time, and now a bhowli rent has been reverted to. The claim is for a bhowli rent for 1285 F., and for a kabuliat for five years from 1286 F. The rent demanded is at the rate of nine-sixteenths of the produce, valued at Rs. 106-13-6, for the year 1285, and it is stated in the plaint that a notice was served on the defendants, under Section 14, Beng. Act VIII of 1869, calling on them to execute a kabuliat to pay nine-sixteenths of the produce as enhanced rent.2. The defendants plead that the notice served upon them was not according to law, inasmuch as it was served on the application of some of the proprietors only,---viz., 14 annas 15 cowri 18 bowri 1 bhowri shareholders. They also plead that cash r...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Sufdar Reza Vs. Amzad Ali and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal703
Richard Garth, C.J.1. If the application of the defendants was accepted by the plaintiff by writing the word 'granted' in the margin, we think that the instrument in question was a lease and therefore required registration. Even if it was an agreement for a lease, it also, in our opinion, required registration; because, coupled with possession by the defendants, its effect clearly was to give the latter an interest in the property for the term mentioned in the doul; and it does not appear that any other document to complete the transaction was contemplated by the parties.2. This view seems to us perfectly consistent with the two decisions, which are mentioned in the reference-the cases of Choonee Mundur v. Chundee Lall Dass (14 W. R., 178) and Bibee Meheroonnissa v. Abdool Gunee (17 W. R., 509), because, in those cases, the application of the tenant was not accepted in writing. It was a mere proposal, which was accepted, if at all, orally, in which case the entire lease or agreement no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »