Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal330
Mitter, (Offg.) C.J.1. I am of opinion that in the Assam Valley Districts, Act X of 1859 is not in force. That Act was passed by the Legislative Council of India which was constituted by the 16 and 17 Vic., Cap., 95. There is no clause in the body of the Act to show that its operation was limited only to a particular portion of British India. Prima facie, therefore, it applies to the whole of British India, unless it can be shown from the context that its operation was intended by the legislature to be limited to any particular portion of British India. But from the provisions of the Act itself it is quite clear that it does not apply to the whole of British India. for instance, the systems of land tenures and the settlements of Government revenue prevailing in the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras would make the provisions of this Act wholly inapplicable to those Presidencies. We have, therefore, to determine to what portion of British India the Act in question was, intended by the Le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal388
Tottenham, J.1. We are of opinion that the lower Courts' judgment is correct. The question involved in the suit is whether a shikmi ghatwali tenure, held under the superior ghatwal, is liable to be sold in execution, or its proceeds liable to attachment for satisfaction of the debt due from its holder. The lower Court has held that it is not liable for such debts, and we entirely, concur in that opinion. The shikmi tenure partakes of the nature of the superior ghatwali tenure, and as the latter has been repeatedly held by this Court to be not liable for such, debts, the former will be necessarily so. The inferior tenure cannot have larger incidents attached to it than the superior.2. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal395
Wilson, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet modifying a decree of the Munsif of Nubeegunge. A preliminary objection was raised that under Section 586 of the Procedure Code this appeal does not lie, on the ground that the claim is under Rs. 500, and the cause of action of such a nature that a Small Cause Court had jurisdiction over it.2. The claim is for contribution. The case found is that the plaintiff and the defendant, being jointly liable on a bond, were jointly sued, and a decree was made against them jointly. The plaintiff was compelled to satisfy that decree and in this suit seeks to recover his share from the defendant. In Rambux Chittanjeo v. Mudhoosoodun Paul Chowdhry B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 675; 7 W.R. 377 the general rule was laid down by a Pull Bench that a suit for contribution does not lie in a Small Cause Court under Section 6 of the Mofussil Small Cause Courts Act (XI of 1865), in the absence of a contract to contribute. In Shaboo M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal411
Tottenham, J.1. The subject of this suit is a property called turuf Lalgurh, etc., which forms a portion of the ghatwali of Pathrole, and this is one of the Birbhum ghatwalis, though it is situated within the Sonthal Pergunnahs.2. The plaintiff Ram Chunder Singh is the ghatwal; and the defendants, appellants in this appeal, are the three widows of Bunwari Lall Singh. The object of the suit is to recover from the defendants possession of the property in suit, with a declaration by the Court that the mokurruri khorposh lease alleged to have been granted by Digbijoy Singh to Kanhya Lall Singh, the father of Bunwari Lall, is not binding upon the plaintiff, and that it is invalid in law. The plaintiff further prays for mesne profits from 1282 to 1285 (1875-76 to 1879).3. Digbijoy Singh was, in his day, ghatwal of Pathrole, and was the great-grandfather of the plaintiff. The estate of the defendants is under the management of the Court of Wards, and their defence has been conducted by it. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal423
Wilson, J.1. In this case the District Judge has reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge, and dismissed the suit, on the ground that it is barred by Section 27 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869, as not having been brought within a year after the plaintiff was dispossessed.2. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the District Judge. It has been repeatedly decided both under Section 23 of Act X of 1859, and under the corresponding Section 27 of Act VIII of 1869, that the one section or the other has no application to a case in which the plaintiff relies upon his title and seeks to recover possession upon the strength of that title, and in which the defendant denies that title.3. Such a suit might have been tried in a Civil Court while Act X of 1859 was in force; and such suit is not subject to the limitation laid down by Section 27 of Act VIII of 1869. Gooroo Doss Roy v. Ram Narain Mitter, J. B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 628; 7 W.R. 186; Nistarinee v. Kally Pershad Dass Chowdhry 21 W.R. 53; Nil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal215
Maclean, J.1. It would have been better had the Assistant Magistrate followed the course pointed out by the presiding Judge in the case of. The Empress v. Partab 1 as the proper course to be adopted.2. We direct that the order passed under Section 505 of the Criminal Procedure Code be set aside, and leave it to the Assistant Magistrate to follow the course prescribed in Section 504, Clause 2, if he thinks proper.1 I.L.R., 1 All., 666. In this case Spankie, J., said: 'In making an order for security for good behaviour, I presume that the Magistrate holds the powers of a first class Magistrate, and that ha was acting under Section 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have some doubt whether the Magistrate had adduced before him such evidence as to general character as to justify his dealing with the accused for the offence of which he found he was guilty, and in the record of the trial I find no evidence from which it could be gathered that the accused was by repute a receiver of sto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal571
Field, J.1.The question in this case is concerned with the construction of a patni kabuliat.2. Some land included in the patni was taken up by Government for public purposes, and the patnidar now claims abatement of rent from the zamindar in respect of the land so taken. The contention of the zamindar is that the patnidar is, by an express covenant contained in the patni kabuliat, debarred from making any such claim for abatement. The patni kabuliat first contains an agreement to the following effect: that if land be taken up by Government for a railway, a ferry fund or other purposes, the zamindar and the patnidar shall divide the compensation paid by Government in respect of such land, each receiving one moiety. There is then a further clause which may be roughly translated as follows: 'I shall make no objection on the score of diluvion or any other cause to pay the rent fixed or reserved by this kabuliat.' I propose to construe this second Clause first; and the question which I have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal164
Mitter, (Officiating) C.J.1. It appears that the appellants before us held a decree against certain persons, who are on the record styled the second party defendants, and in execution of that decree the property in dispute in this case was attached. The plaintiffs intervened under Section 246 of the Procedure Code of 1859, claiming to have the property in dispute released on the ground that it did not belong to the second party defendants, but to themselves. Their claim was disallowed by the Court executing the decree on the 15th of August 1877.2. The present suit was brought on the 4th of March 1880 for the purpose of establishing the plaintiffs' title to the property in dispute, and for confirmation of their possession thereof. The object of the suit apparently was to obtain a declaration that the decree-holders were not entitled to sell this property in execution of their decree against the second party defendants.3. The Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiffs' suit as barr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal103
Wilson, J.1. The order of the Assistant Magistrate must be set aside as made without jurisdiction. The order under Section 518 can only be made when it is necessary to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury to the person or injury to human life, health, or safety or a riot or affray. Such an order cannot be made merely for the protection of property.2. In the present case, taking the Assistant Magistrate's finding at the highest, it cannot amount to more than this, that the bund in question diminishes the supply of water to the land lying at a lower level....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal147
Mitter, (Officiating) C.J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to eject the defendant from two plots of land constituting his holding. The suit was based upon the ground that, under a contract, or according to the custom of the country, the defendant was bound to use the land of his holding for agricultural purposes only; but that the defendant, in contravention of this condition, planted trees upon the land in dispute, and converted it into a garden.2. The plaintiff alleged that this planting of trees took place in October 1876. The suit was brought on the 19th of April 1879. The plaintiff in his plaint sought for two reliefs. He asked first for the ejectment of the defendant, and if the defendant was not liable to be ejected, he next asked in the alternative that the defendant should be compelled to remove the trees planted by him.3. As regards one of the plots in dispute the Munsif found that the planting of the trees had taken place more than twelve years before the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!