Kolkata Court December 1882 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.
Ram Dass Vs. Birjnundun Das Alias Laloo Baboo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal617
Wilson, J.1. We entertain no doubt about this case, and we agree with the view taken by the Court below. The suit is a suit to redeem a mortgage, and the question is whether the suit is barred by limitation. There is no. question that this depends upon the terms of the Limitation Act of 1871. Now, under Article 148 of the second schedule to that Act, a suit must be brought within 'sixty years from the date of the mortgage, unless where an acknowledgment of the title of the mortgagor or of his right of redemption has, before the expiration of the prescribed period, been made in writing, signed by the mortgagee, or some person claiming under him, and in such case, the date of the acknowledgment.' In this case, the sixty years elapsed while the Act of 1871 was the governing Act, and the suit is therefore barred unless there is a sufficient acknowledgment to save it from the operation of limitation. The acknowledgment relied upon is contained in the written statement filed by the present d...
Dassorathy Huri Chunder Mahapattra Vs. Rama Krishna Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal526
Prinsep, J.1. We think that the conclusion arrived at by the lower Appellate Court is correct.2. Any acts of one or more of several joint tenants which possibly might operate as a forfeiture of tenancy, would not entitle the landlord to exact that penalty as against all the tenants; moreover the plaintiff zamindar's case has throughout been that the tenure cannot be split up by any arrangement among the tenants as between themselves, and that he is not bound to, and will not acknowledge the validity of, any such arrangement by which separate specific rights are created.3. We cannot now allow him in second appeal to alter his case and to claim a forfeiture on any specific shares of the joint tenancy so as to entitle him to recover khas possession of those shares. The landlord's appeal must therefore be dismissed.14. The appeal of the assignee of the rights of some of the sharers must also be dismissed, as it has been found on the authority of reported cases that the alienation of a tenu...
Koonjo Behary Roy Vs. Poorno Chunder Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal450
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the learned Judge is quite right.2. Under Section 32 of the Rent Law a gomashta has no right to bring a suit in his own name. He can only sue in the name of his employer, and conduct the suit for him like any other agent.3. It has been contended, indeed, that he did bring this suit as agent, and that the plaint should be read in that sense; but it is difficult so to construe the language, and when we look at the verification of the plaint, it is clear that the gomashta describes himself, and not his employer, as the real plaintiff.4. This appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Noyna Misser and anr. Vs. Rupikun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal609
Wilson, J.1. We think that this appeal should be dismissed. Two points have been discussed before us: First, whether the Judge in the lower Appellate Court was right or not in overruling so much of the decree of the Court of First Instance as granted to the plaintiffs a decree evicting the defendants. As to that we feel no hesitation; no authority has been cited to us, nor any reasoning satisfactory to our minds tending to show that where a tenant has been guilty of a breach of duty in the use of his land, such as making a tank in it, building on it improperly, or changing the character of the cultivation, this operates necessarily as a forfeiture and renders him liable to be evicted. On this point, therefore, we fully agree with the lower Appellate Court. The second question is one of much greater difficulty, and that is whether the lower court, ought not at the same time to have given them a decree granting an injunction against the future use of the land by the defendants in the way...
Uggur Roy and ors. Vs. Jullessur Kooer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal725
Mitter, (Offg.) C.J.1. This suit relates to the estate left by one Sheo Prosad Roy, who died in Assar 1270 (June 1863). It is admitted by the contending parties that on Sheo Prosad's death his estate devolved upon his widow, Sunder Kali Kooer, under the Mitakshara law of inheritance which governs the family. Sunder Kali died in 1271, (1864) and the estate then devolved upon Komla Kooer, the mother of Sheo Prosad Roy. The dispute which led to the institution of this suit arose on the death of Komla Kooer, which took place on the 26th Assin 1286 (11th October 1879). The plaintiffs are the male gotraja sapindas of Sheo Prosad, descended from his great-grandfather, and the t defendant, who is in possession of the estate in question, is his sister. The plaintiff's contention is, that under the Mitakshara law the sister is not in the line of heirs at all. If this contention be correct then there cannot be any question that the decree of the lower Court in favour of the plaintiffs is correct....
Janoki Debi Vs. Gopal Acharjia Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal766
R. Couch, J.1. The appellant in this case brought a suit to recover possession of certain properties which she alleged in the plaint to be partly brahmottar and partly debattar, the latter being dedicated to certain deities of the names of Keshab Rai and others, and also for the possession of the deities themselves from the hands of the first defendant, Sri Gopal Acharjia Goswami. Although the plaintiff described part of the properties claimed as her own brahmottar, which had devolved upon her by right of inheritance, it appeared on the hearing before the first Court, and was admitted by both parties, that the whole of the properties claimed belonged to the deities.2. The plaintiff's case was that the properties were in the possession of Lakhan Acharjia Goswami as sebait of the idols; that he having no son of his body, took the plaintiff's husband, Bijai Lakhan Acharjia, in adoption, and died in October or November 1859; that Bijai Lakhan being then a minor, his mother took possession ...
Baso Kooer and ors. Vs. Hurry Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal495
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs in these two suits are members of a joint family of which Chumun Lal was the common ancestor. Chumun Lal left six sons him surviving, viz., Behari Lal, Kanhya Lal, Sheo Lal, Domun Lal, Shoukhi Lal and Amrit Lal; but Amrit Lal may be left out of consideration, as he died without issue leaving a widow Radha Kooer. There was a question raised in the lower Court as to the date of the death of Chuman Lal, but the lower Court has found that it took place in 1262 (1855). We concur in this finding. Of the descendants of the surviving five sons of Chuman Lal, it is sufficient for our purpose to state that Behari Lal had three sons, viz., Bhowani Pershad, Peary Lal and Gopal Lal, and that Sheo Lal had a son named Durga Pershad. In the suit out of which appeal No. 60 arises, the plaintiffs are the widow and sons of Kanhya Lal, and the sons and wives of Bhowani Pershad, of Gopal Lal and of Domun Lal. In the other suit the plaintiffs are sons of Shoukhi Lal, sons and wif...
Lutchmeeput Singh Vs. Sadaulla Nushyo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal698
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff is the patnidar of Pergunnah Batasone. The defendants Nos. 1 to 9 are the inhabitants of Roopsi, the defendants Nos. 10 and 11 are the inhabitants of Joroollahpore, and the defendants Nos. 12 and 13 are the inhabitants of Manipore. The villages of Roopsi, Joroollahpore and Manipore appertain to the zamindari of Pergunnah Batasone.2. The plaintiff brought this suit praying for an injunction against the defendants to restrain them from fishing in certain bhils set out in the schedule to the plaint, and for a declaration that they had no right of fishing in the aforesaid, bhils.3. The grounds of action stated in the plaint are, that the bhils in question appertain to the zamindari of Pergunnah Batasone, of which the plaintiff is the patnidar; that the plaintiff is in possession of the fishery right in the said bhils; that out of these bhils, bhils Kendra and others, named in the second paragraph of the plaint, were let out in ijara to Kholie Mahomed and Deve Nus...
Gobind Chunder Addya Vs. Afzul Rabbani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal426
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff sues in this case to recover a small piece of ground with the building upon it; and the suit has been dismissed in the Court below, upon the ground that the plaintiff is precluded by Section 103 of the Civil Procedure Code from bringing it.2. It appears that the piece of land, which is the subject of the suit, belonged formerly, together with other land, to one Abdool Hye, and that two several portions of this land were sold under an execution against Abdool Hye on the same day; one portion, No. 155, was sold to a Mr. Linton; and another portion, No. 147, to Afzul Rabbani, the present defendant.3. The plaintiff in this suit bought Mr. Linton's share at a sale in execution of a decree; and he claims the piece of land now in suit, as belonging to the portion numbered 155, which Mr. Linton purchased.4. On the other hand, the defendant Afzul Rabbani claims it as part of the piece numbered 147, which he purchased; and he has set up as a defence to the pla...
Radhapersad Singh Vs. Ram Parmeswar Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal797
A. Hobhouse, J.1. In this case there have been changes of parties, as frequently happens when a litigation extends over many years; but they have made no difference to the present question, and it will be convenient to speak of the appellant and respondents as if there was no change. So speaking of them, the appellant has been ordered to pay to the respondents the costs of a litigation with them. He now seeks to set-off against those costs the costs of a prior part of the same litigation which were awarded to him; and the question is whether his right to those prior costs has been displaced by a subsequent decree in the later part of the litigation. In the Court below the appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants. The suit was for the recovery of certain lands; and the respondents set up a defence of the law of limitation. That issue was decided in their favour by the Subordinate Judge on the 31st July 1868, and in consequence the appellant's suit was dismisse...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›