Kolkata Court December 1883 Judgments
Dinabashy Shaha and ors. Vs. Khetter Mohun Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-28-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal265
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This was a suit brought, under Section 77 of the Registration Act for the purpose of obtaining registry of a deed.2. The reason why the Registrar refused to register it was that the signature of the defendant had not been proved to his satisfaction.3. A suit was then brought by the plaintiffs in the Munsif's Court, which was eventually dismissed upon the ground that such Court (sic) the proper one to try the question; and the plaint was consequently returned by the Munsif, in order to its being presented in the Subordinate Judge's Court, which was accordingly done.4. Both the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge have now decreed the plaintiffs' claim; and upon appeal to this Court, two points have been raised, first, that the plaintiffs' claim is barred by limitation; and, secondly, that the District Judge ought not to have found, as he has done, that the application was made to the Registrar by the plaintiffs' authorized agent.5. With regard to the first poin...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkristo Dass Vs. Sheikh Harain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal517
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the registered owner of a revenue-paying estate under Beng. Act VII of 1876, and in this and other analogous cases he sues certain tenants of that estate to recover rent for the lands which they hold; and for the purposes of the question, which we have to determine, we must assume that he has proved no title to the rent which he claims, beyond the mere fact that he is the registered proprietor. The question is, whether that fact alone entitles him to recover rent from the defendants.2. The Court of First Instance considered that it did; but the Subordinate Judge and the learned Judge of this Court have both decided against the plaintiff. He now appeals to us relying on the language of Section 78 of Beng. Act VII of 1876.3. That section says that 'no person shall be bound to pay rent to any person claiming such rent as proprietor or manager of an estate or revenue-free property in respect of which he is required by this Act to cause his name to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoyrub Chunder Surma Roy Vs. Chunder Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal250
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that this appeal should be dismissed.2. The plaintiff brought this suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for the purchase of the property, and it was decided by the Court below that he was entitled to a decree as against the defendant No. 4, who with full notice of the agreement, has subsequently bought the property from the other defendants, and had registered his purchase deed.3. It is contended by the appellant that this decision was wrong. But we find that the very point has been considered by Justices Mitter and Maclean in the case of Solano v. Lala Ram Lal 7 C.L.R. 481 and decided against the appellant's view.4. Those learned Judges founded their decision upon the general doctrine of equity, which had been previously acted upon in several cases in this Court, and which has been always recognized in England; that notwithstanding the provisions of the Registration Act, a party who purchases, even under a registered deed, with notice of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Sundari Devi Widow of Monoranjan Das Vs. Govinda Chandra Addy an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal368
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge, confirming a sale in execution.2. The circumstances were these-One Monoranjan Das became the purchaser at the sale of certain immoveable property described as lots 2 and 3; and he petitioned the Court that the sale should be set aside, and his deposit returned to him, upon the ground that there had been a fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale notification, and that consequently he had bought a property very different in its nature and value from that which purported to be sold. There is no doubt that he purchased the same property which was mentioned in the notification; but it was far less valuable than he had reason to believe it to be on account of certain putni leases of which no notice was given, and for certain other reasons, which he alleges to have been known to the execution creditor, and fraudulently concealed by the way in which the property was described in the sale notification.3. The subject-m...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kristo Lall Nag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal256
ORDERRichard Garth, C.J.1. In this case Mr. Ghose applied to this Bench in September last for a rule under the following circumstances:A preliminary enquiry had taken place at Noakhally before the Deputy Magistrate, Mr. Barber, with regard to several persons, who were charged with dacoity. One of the prisoners, Chand My an, was defended by a first grade pleader, named Kristo Lall Nag, who, in the course of the enquiry, asked questions of the witnesses, which showed that he was in possession of copies of certain Police investigation papers.2. It afterwards appeared that; he had copies of confessions which bad been made to the Police by three of the prisoners (other than the man he was defending) and also copies of depositions of certain witnesses also taken by the Police; and he made use of these copies in conducting his client's case.3. As copies of these papers are not allowed by the Police authorities to be given to anybody, the Deputy Magistrate considered that those which the plead...
Tag this Judgment!Akhil Chandra Chowdhry Vs. Nayu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal248
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We regret very much that we find it necessary to remand this case, but we do so, because we are led to believe, from what the Subordinate Judge himself says, that he has made a mistake in applying the rules which have been laid down by this Court with reference to the use of jumma-wasil-baki papers.2. There were two questions in the case: first, with regard to the rate of rent which the defendants had to pay; and, secondly, with regard to the appropriation of the payments.3. We need not say anything as to the latter point, because we think that the Subordinate Judge was substantially right in the way in which he appropriated the payments.4. But with regard to the first point, the Subordinate Judge says that he cannot believe the first witness who is called for the plaintiffs, because he is unable to say what is the amount of rent which he realized from the defendant in the year 1241, without referring to the jumma-wasil-baki papers.5. Now we have had the evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Malkai Mukhadrai Uzwa Badshah Mehal Saheba Vs. Mohamed Masik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal380
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I have no doubt whatever that in this case the nature of the appeal is the same as the value of the suit, namely, Rs. 2,50,000.2. The question is not what is the defendant's personal interest in the subject-matter of the suit. He may have no personal interest at all; and yet the subject-matter of the appeal may be as valuable as the subject-matter of the suit. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in the defendant's objection....
Tag this Judgment!Gopeenath Mookerjee and anr. Vs. Kally Doss Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal225
Pigot, J.1. I need not detail the form in which this matter now cornea before me. It appears sufficiently from the pleadings and affidavits in the present case and from the pleadings in the former case from which this case springs.2. The plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendant Kally Doss from executing a decree of this Court in a suit brought by him against the defendant Sreemutty Mohamoyee Dabee on the ground that the decree in that suit was obtained by collusion between her and Kally Doss.3. The first point taken by the defendant is, that the plaintiffs are clothed with no right such as to entitle them to maintain their suit at all, on the ground that the suit instituted by Peary Mohun against Kally Doss and Sreemutty Mohamoyee Dabee to set aside the decree in the before-mentioned suit was compromised in such a manner as entirely to bar the plaintiffs' rights in respect of her deceased husband, Monohur Mookerjee, inasmuch as the consent decree obtained in that suit amounted in effe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›