Kolkata Court June 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.
Godadhar Dass Vs. Dhunput Sing
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal585
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the District Judge has taken an erroneous view of the rights of the parties. The amount in question is inconsiderable; but the principle upon which the case depends is an important one; and as we had some doubt whether the view which we were at first disposed to take was correct, we have had the case argued a second time.2. Under the Land Acquisition Act of 1870, the Government took a small piece of land, containing rather more than four bighas, in the district of Dinagepore, for the purposes of the northern Bengal State Railway. The agreed amount of compensation in respect of the whole of this land was Rs. 104-4-2; and three claimants only appeared-the Raja, who was the zamindar, the patnidar, and the darpatnidar. The District Judge held, that so long as the zamindar continued to receive from the patnidar his entire rent under the patta, without any abatement in respect of the land in question, his interests would not be affected; and as at the hear...
Gunesh Dutt, Alias Nanhoo Singh and anr. Vs. Khoshelal Mahton and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal690
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs instituted this suit on the 3rd December 1879 to recover arrears of rent for the years 1284, 1285, and 1286 F. S. (corresponding with the years 1876 to 1879). The defendants alleged, that the rents for the years 1284 and 1285 (1876-1878) had been paid in full, and that of the year 1286 (1878-79) having been deposited under the provisions of the Rent Act, the notice of such deposit was given to the plaintiffs on the 31st May 1879. They pleaded that the suit, not having been instituted within six months from the 31st May 1879, was barred under the provisions of Section 31 of the Rent Act.2. The Munsif held, that the suit was barred, while the Judge on appeal came to the contrary conclusion. The latter officer based his decision on the ground that the deposit of the rent of the year 1286 (1878-79) was not legal under the Act, because it had not then become due.3. It is contended before us that the Judge is wrong in assuming without evidence that the rent was no...
Makund Lall and anr. Vs. Chaturi Sing and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal710
Mitter, J.1. It is found by the lower Courts, that the plaintiffs held the disputed land in jote, and were ousted by the defendants in April 1285 (1878) without any notice. It is also found, that they had not, before ouster, acquired a right of occupancy. The defendants are owners of a fractional share of the estate in which the lands lie, but they claim an exclusive right to them as their zerat. The suit was dismissed by the first Court, while the lower Appellate Court, reversing that judgment, has awarded a decree, on the ground that the plaintiffs could not be legally evicted without a reasonable notice.2. It has been contended before us, that a ryot not having a right of occupancy may be evicted at the end of the year without a notice. No doubt, a ryot holding under a patta having a fixed term may be evicted without notice at the end of the fixed term. But that is not the case here. The plaintiffs allege that their father obtained a patta for one year, viz., 1179 (1871-72), and the...
Chuni Singh and anr. Vs. Wazeer Mahton and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal727
Mitter, J.1. This was a suit for arrears of rent for the years 1284 and 1285 (1876-1878), the rent being admittedly payable in kind. The plaintiffs claim to recover in the proportion of nine-sixteenths of the produce; the defendants allege that the proportion is half and half.2. It appears that there was a previous suit between the parties in respect of the rent of the years 1281 to 1283 (1874-1876). In that suit, also, they were at issue upon this point, viz., in what proportion the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the produce. The whole matter in difference in that suit was referred to arbitration, and the arbitrator submitted his award, deciding this question in favour of the plaintiffs. Certain objections were taken against the award, but the Gourt overruled them and passed judgment in accordance with it. The defendants appealed against that judgment, but failed, on the ground that the judgment being in accordance with the award was final under the law.3. The Courts below in this...
Jonmenjoy Mulliek Vs. Dossmoney Dossee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal714
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the first question should be answered in the affirmative.2. The plaintiff has clearly no right to sue for the restoration of the mortgaged property. His proper course, in our opinion, was that which he adopted in the first instance,---namely, to sue to have his lien upon the property declared.3. The High Court's judgment in Dossmoney Dossaa v. Jonmenjoy Mulliok (I. L. Rule, 3 Cal., 363; S. C., 1 C. L. R., 446), appears to us to be erroneous. The learned Judges in that case seem to think that because the plaintiff had obtained a decree for his mortgage-money, he had thereby lost his lien; but this is not so. There is ample authority in this Court to show that such a proposition is unfounded. A man who has an equitable lien for a simple contract-debt does not lose his lien by turning his debt into a judgment-debt. Under certain circumstances he may be restrained from pursuing both his remedies simultaneously; but having enforced one remedy without full...
Robarts Vs. Harrison
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal333
Wilson, J.1. This was an application by the plaintiff to take off the file an award filed by the arbitrators who made it, on the ground that, under the Limitation Act, it was filed too late.2. The reference was in a suit. The award was made and published in due time on the 29th September 1880 It was filed by the arbitrators on the 29th April 1881. The plaintiff contends, that the filing was out of time under Article 176 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act (XV of 1877), which prescribes a period of six months from the making of the award for an 'application under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 516 or 525, that an award be filed in Court.'3. In order to see whether this contention is correct, it is necessary to examine the sections of the Code relating to arbitrations. There are three kinds of arbitration dealt with in chap, xxxvii-references of matters in difference in suits already pending; references not in suits, but in which the submission is filed under Section 523, ...
In Re: Riasat Ali, Alias Babu Miya, Alias Bodiuzzuma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal352
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The prisoner in this ease was charged with an attempt to commit forgery, and the facts proved were that he gave orders to the Burdwan Press to print one hundred receipt forms similar to those which were formerly used by the Bengal Coal Company; that he corrected one proof of those forms, and was suggesting further corrections in a second proof in order to assimilate the form to that now used by the Company, when he was arrested by the police. The jury found him guilty of an attempt to commit forgery, 'in that he dishonestly and with the intent to commit fraud caused a document to be printed with the intention of making such an addition to it as would make it a false document.2. Assuming this finding of the jury, as to what the prisoner actually did, to be correct, the question is, whether he could be legally convicted of an attempt to commit forgery? The definition of forgery in Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as it is necessary to refer to i...
NobIn Krishna Bose and anr. Vs. Mon Mohun Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal573
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 225 from the defendants under these circumstances:2. The plaintiffs had sued the defendants to recover possession of four annas of a patni estate, of which the defendants claimed the whole, and were admittedly entitled to the other twelve annas. The real question in that suit was, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the four annas as patnidars, or whether they held them as darpatnidars, the defendants being the holders of the whole patni.3. In that suit the plaintiffs got a decree as patnidars in the first Court; but on appeal the case was remanded for some further evidence to be taken. In that state of things, and whilst the plaintiff's bond fide believed themselves to be entitled to the four annas, they paid into the zemindar's sherishta Rs. 225 on account of the revenue for that sharo. But as it was eventually decided that the plaintiff's held the four annas, not as patnidars, but as darpatnidars, it turned out that th...
Bibee Syefun Vs. Rudder Sohay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal582
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the lower Appellate Court has made a very serious mistake in this case in finding in favour of the defendant upon the plea of payment, without any evidence whatever to support that finding.2. It was not denied that a certain sum for rent had become due to the plaintiff from the defendant for the year 1283, but the defendant's plea was that those sums had been paid. The onus was entirely upon the defendant to prove this plea, but instead of going into the witness-box himself, or at any rate calling his agent in order to prove the payments (which, if the pleas wore true, they could readily have done), what the defendant did was this: He called the plaintiff's agent as his own witness, and ho produced certain receipts of sums which had been paid in 1283; and the plaintiff's agent was then asked, whether those sums were not received. The plaintiff's agent acknowledged that they were received, but not in payment of rent for the year 1283. He stated that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›