Kolkata Court January 1883 Judgments
Hury Doyal Guho Vs. DIn Doyal Guho
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal479
Field, J.1. Three points were raised in the grounds of appeal in this case The first point (as to costs), and the third point raised in the first and third grounds of appeal respectively were given up at the hearing; and we have only to dispose of the question raised in the second ground of appeal.2. The decree-holder (Appellant) Hury Doyal Guho Mujumdar contends that the Court below was wrong in allowing the judgment-debtor Din Doyal Guho to set-off against the amount of the decree-holder's decree the sum of Rs. 51-13, being the amount of a decree which Din Doyal, the judgment-debtor, had obtained against the decree-holder appellant and another person. I have considered this matter, and think that the decision of the learned District Judge is correct upon this point. Illustration (b) of Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows: 'A and B co-plaintiffs obtain a decree, for Rs. 1,000 against C, and G obtains a decree for Rs. 1,000 against B. G cannot treat his decree as a...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chunder Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Juddoo Lall Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal778
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I regret very much that the parties in this case should not have been able to adopt the suggestion of the Court, and settle their differences out of Court; but as they have failed to do so, it is necessary that we should give our judgment; and I feel bound to say that I cannot take the same view of the case as the learned Judge in the Court below.2. I quite think that the plaintiffs' evidence is not as precise as it might have been, either as to the number of years, during which the right claimed has been exercised, or as to the particular mode or times of the alleged enjoyment.3. It very rarely happens in my experience that the evidence of native witnesses in cases of this kind is very accurate. But on the whole I think it sufficiently appears that a right, such as the plaintiffs' claim, has been exercised from time to time for upwards of 20 years before suit; and the probabilities of the case seem to me greatly in favour of that view.4. Certain facts giving rise...
Tag this Judgment!Mohun Chunder Kurmokar and anr. Vs. Mohes Chunder Kurmokar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal569
Cunningham, J.1. In this case there was a decree on compromise on the 30th January 1877, by which the parties were declared to be entitled to a partition, and it was ordered that, if the plaintiffs did not have the partition of the lands carried out within two months, any one of the parties, plaintiffs or defendants, might execute the decree and take possession after partition. The partition was not carried out forthwith, and an application was made by some of the plaintiffs to have the partition effected, and on that application, without dividing the entire property, one-third portion was separated. On the 16th March 1882 the present applicants applied for partition of the rest of the properties, that is, of the remaining two-thirds which were not partitioned The question we have now to decide is, whether that application being made more than three years after the decree of the 30th January 1877 is kept alive by the application of some of the plaintiffs in January 1880. The lower Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Dutto Singh and ors. Vs. Dosad Bahadur Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal575
Mitter, J.1. These two rules arise out of a proceeding held in the Munsiff's Court of Tajpore under the provisions of Sections 525 and 526 of the Civil Procedure Code. It appears that certain matters in dispute between the parties to these two rules were referred to arbitration without the intervention of a Court of Justice. The arbitrators made their award on the 5th of August 1881; but it was not handed over to the parties till the 13th September following. The petitioners in Rule No. 1033 being dissatisfied with the award, in the meantime filed, on the 16th of August, a petition of review before the arbitrators.2. While this petition of review was pending, the petitioners in Rule No. 1202 under Section 525 of the Civil Procedure Code, applied to the Munsiff of Tajpore, who had jurisdiction over the matter, to have the award filed in Court. On notice being given to the petitioners in Rule No. 1033, who were the parties to the arbitration other than the applicants under Section 525, t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhobotarini Debi Vs. Sree Ram Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal629
Maclean, J.1. The respondent's pleader objects to our hearing this appeal on the ground that the plaintiff, appellant, Bhobotarini Debi, was not the plaintiff in the original suit, and that therefore she has no locus standi in this Court. It is a matter of surprise that this objection should have been raised here, because we find that the person who is now appellant before us was alone placed upon the record in the lower Appellate Court as respondent. We cannot therefore, allow the objection to bar the hearing of this appeal. The appellant's vakeel recognizes his situation and asks us to set aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, which is adverse to her in saddling her with costs, on the ground that she was not liable under the Munsif's decree and was in fact improperly made respondent in the Court below. We think there is no way out of the respondent's dilemma. Having omitted to make Suttobali Debi, the real plaintiff, respondent in the lower Appellate Court, he has lost his...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath and ors. Vs. Aloke Chunder Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal641
Maclean, J.1. In this case the question to be decided is whether the sale, on the basis of which the plaintiffs sue as purchasers, passed the tenure or only the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtors. It appears that in 1870, the plaintiffs' mother brought a suit for arrears of rent of a howla for the years 1274,1275 and 1276, and obtained a decree on the 19th July. In execution of that decree, the property, on account of which the suit for arrears had been brought, was sold. What was sold is the present dispute. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that since the certificate purports to have been issued under Sections 59 and 60 of the Rent Act and the Court admittedly had no power to sell under that Act anything but the tenure itself, there arises an irrebuttable presumption in favour of the tenure being sold. But when we turn to the notification, under which the sale is declared to have taken place, and the sale certificate, we find that they contain a clear and pre...
Tag this Judgment!imam Buksh Vs. Thacko Bibee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal599
Maclean, J.1. The appellant before us applied to the District Court of the 24-Pergunnahs for a certificate of administration, under Act XL of 1858, to the property of an infant, Chota Bari Bibee, granddaughter of one Nizamudin, The petitioner's position is that of a brother of the infant's deceased mother.2. There appears to be some opposition on the part of one Thacko Bibee, widow of Nizamudin; but her case does not affect the question before us. She disputes the title of the infant to the property of Nizamudin. That question, of course, has to be decided elsewhere.3. The Collector, we are informed, was the first who moved the Civil Court to appoint a guardian for the minor, and he also appears to have suggested to the Judge the appointment of a lady called Kulsoom Bibee, who is in no way connected with the minor by any relationship. The District Judge, adopting certain objections made by the Collector to the appointment of the appellant, has refused him a certificate, and granted one...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›