Kolkata Court June 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.
Rajdhur Chowdhry Vs. Kalikristna Bhatta Charjya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal963
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the lower Appellate Court has taken an erroneous view of this matter.2. The plaintiff's case is, that the defendant No. 1 granted to him a maurasi patta of the land in question, professedly for himself and the other defendants, Nos. 2 to 7, who are co-proprietors with him; and it appears that the plaintiff entered upon the land and paid rent under this patta.3. But then the defendants Nos. 2 to 7, instead of confirming the contract that had been made for them by the defendant No. 1, repudiated it, as having been made without their authority; and in consequence the plaintiff was ejected. He therefore brings this suit against all the defendants for the purpose of having the contract, which the defendant No. 1 made professedly for himself and his co-defendants, enforced against them all; or, as an alternative, he claims to have the Rs. 250, which he paid by way of premium for the maurasi patta, restored to him.4. Both the lower Courts have found that th...
Havaldar Roy and anr. Vs. Jagu Mean
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal96
Maclean, J.1. The petitioners were tried before a Bench of Magistrates at Jugdespore on a charge of an offence under Section 352. The Bench was composed of an Assistant Magistrate with second class powers and three Honorary Magistrates. The former and two of the latter signed the judgment convicting the petitioners, and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 5 each.2. An appeal was preferred to the District Magistrate, who dismissed the appeal of Wahid Ali and enhanced the sentence of Havaldar Roy by addition of two months' rigorous imprisonment.3. On motion made by counsel, the proceedings have been sent for and counsel heard on both sides. The first question for our decision is whether any appeal lay to the District Magistrate. This question is raised on behalf of the appellants themselves. In fact, they now assert that their appeal was improperly lodged. Had the sentence not been enhanced, we should not have entertained this objection. The case was tried under the summary procedure (c...
Yusuf Ali and ors. Vs. the Collector of Tippera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal138
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We thought it right in this case, when it first came before us on second appeal, to send it back to the District Judge, for the purpose of having these two material points more clearly ascertained:1st-What interest had Bhani Bibi in the properties given her by her husband, and those purchased with her own money, at the time when she executed the ikrar of 1253? and2nd-Under what circumstances, and. for what reason, did she execute that ikrar2. Upon these points the District Judge has found:1st-That Bhani Bibi had an absolute, and not a life, interest only in the property in dispute up to the time when she executed the ikrar of 1253; and2ndly-That the ikrar of 1253 was executed at the solicitation of her husband, but without any undue influence or fraud.3. He says that the reason for her executing it seems to have been that, as she was then pretty well advanced in life, and had no children, her husband was anxious that the property which he had bestowed upon her sho...
Dwarkanath Vs. Baburam Laskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal72
Prinsep, J.1. The District Judge has dismissed this suit, on the ground that this was a suit for enhancement, and no notice required by Section 14 of the Rent Law had been served. It appears to us that the terms of the contract between the parties, under which the tenancy of the defendant was created, dispenses with the necessity for such notice. The case is precisely similar to that decided by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Morris, J., and myself, in Appeal No. 759 of 1878. In that judgment we expressed ourselves to the following effect: 'There is no provision as to the necessity of previous notice or even to the presence of the tenant at the time of measurement. The tenant unreservedly stipulates to pay at a certain rate per kani for any such land as upon measurement may be found to be in excess of the estimated area. Under the contract the time of discovery of the excess land by means of measurement is the moment from which he engages to pay additional rent for such e...
Jagut Chunder Roy, Alias Bashi Chunder Roy and ors. Vs. Rup Chand Chan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal48
Field, J.1. In this case the District Judge was of opinion that the notice to quit was bad, merely because the period allowed did not expire at the end of the year. He relies upon certain cases quoted in his judgment. With reference to the case of Rajendronath Mookhopadhya v. Bassider Ruhman Khondkar I.L.R. 2 Cal. 146; S.C. 25 W.R. 330 we have to observe that the question referred to the Full Bench was--'Whether a ryot, whose tenancy can only be determined by a reasonable notice to quit expiring at the end of the year, can claim to have a suit brought against him by the landlord dismissed on the ground that ho has had no such notice,' etc. This assumed that the ryot in that particular case was entitled to a reasonable notice to quit expiring at the end of the year. No question was raised or decided as to whether, as a general principle, a notice to quit, in order to be reasonable, must expire at the end of the year. Then, in the case of Janoo Mundur v. Brijo Singh 22 W.R. 548 Phear, J....
Hardey NaraIn Vs. Lal Jee Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal105
Cunningham, J.1. This action is brought on a promissory note made at Durbhunga in the Mozufferpore District, but payable (as the evidence appears to us sufficiently to prove that the parties intended) in the Monghyr district. A plea is raised to the jurisdiction of the Bhagalpore Court, on the ground that the cause of action, within the meaning of Section 17 of the Code, did not arise within the local limits of its jurisdiction. This raises the question whether, when a contract is made in one place) for fulfillment in another, a suit for the breach can, under Section 17 of the Code, be brought in the District where performance was intended to take place and the breach occurred, or whether the cause of action includes not only the breach on which the suit is brought, but the contract and other circumstances which, together with the breach, go to constitute the plaintiff's right to sue.2. Conflicting decisions have been given by the English Courts as to the meaning of the corresponding w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›