Kolkata Court February 1883 Judgments
Moti Lal Bundopadhya Vs. Digumber Roy Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal563
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that according to the Hindu law current in the Lower Provinces of Bengal a brother's daughter's son is a preferable heir to the great-great-great-grandfather's great-great-great-grandson.2. In the Full Bench decision in Guru Gobind Shaha Mandal v. Anund Lal Ghose Mazumdar 5 B.L.R. 15; S.C. 13. W.R. F.B. 49 Mr. Justice Dwarkanath Mitter, J. was of opinion that a cognate of this description is a sapinda as defined in the Dayabhaga. A brother's daughter's son offers two pindas or undivided oblations to the father and the grand father of the deceased in which he participates. 'Whereas the great-great-great-grandfather's great-great-great-grandson is not connected with the deceased through the medium of undivided oblations. He is a sakulya or an agnate, connected with the deceased through the medium of divided oblations. Therefore, the competition in this case is between a cognate who is a sapinda and an agnate who is a sakulya. According to the Dayabhaga, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Janoki Nath Mukhopadhya Vs. Mothuranath Mukhopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal580
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that both these questions should be answered in the affirmative.2. It is now settled law that the interest of a Hindu widow may be alienated by her, and that the alienation would be valid for her life. In cases of necessity, such as are mentioned in paras. 61 and 62, Section 1, chap. XI of the Dayabhage, she may effect even an absolute alienation to enure after her death. If there were no provisions to the contrary, the right of alienation of the interest of one of two or more widows jointly inheriting their husband's estate Would logically flow from these two propositions. So far as the doctrines of the Hindu law prevalent in the Lower Provinces of Bengal are concerned, there does not, in our opinion, exist any such contrary provision.3. One of the cardinal points of difference between the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga is, that according to the latter the right of alienation being a necessary incident of ownership, one of two or more joint owners can alie...
Tag this Judgment!Buchu Lall Vs. Tulsi Panday
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal596
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It seems to us that the view taken by the learned Judges who referred this case is correct. Prima facie in a suit of this kind/the appellant is entitled to a second appeal. The question is, whether that right is taken away by Section 102 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869? That section only applies where the amount sued for, or the value of the property claimed, does not exceed Rs. 100.2. In this case there' is nothing to show that the value of the property claimed does not exceed Rs. 100; and unless that fact does appear, either from the finding of the lower Court, or elsewhere upon the proceedings, it seems to us that we have no right (more especially as we are only empowered here to deal with points of law) to draw any inference to that effect.We are, therefore, of opinion, that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; and a the Division Bench has already decided that the lower Courts were wrong in decreeing the ejectment, we think that the judgment should b...
Tag this Judgment!The Empress Vs. Brojokanto Roy Chowdhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal638
Mitter, J.1. We agree with the Sessions Judge that the order, of the Deputy Magistrate of Putuakhali, purporting to have been passed under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, is illegal, and should be set aside on the ground that it is unconditional. As required by the section, it does not appoint any time or place within which and where the person to whom it is directed may appear before the Deputy Magistrate himself, or some other Magistrate of the first or second class, and move to have the order set aside or modified. We accordingly set aside the order, which the Sessions Judge recommends to be set aside....
Tag this Judgment!Carlisles, Nephews and Co. Vs. Hurmook Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal679
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the judgment of the Court below is correct. It is satisfactory to have seen the original contract, because it seems clear that the printed words in the margin 'now in course of landing, &c.;,' were merely the common form generally used by the plaintiffs' firm, and were not intended to constitute any part of this particular contract. The argument, therefore, which was addressed to us upon those words entirely fails.2. We think that the questions referred to us should be answered as follows:The first and fourth questions should be answered' in the affirmative. The second question of course, does not arise; and as to the third, we do not see that the Nagri writing is at all inconsistent with the English contract.3. The defendants must pay the costs of this reference....
Tag this Judgment!Mohesh Chunder Bagchi and ors. Vs. in No. 308.--titu Bibi,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal683
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In answer to the questions referred to us, I think that an under-tenure is clearly an incumbrance within the meaning of Section 66, of the Rent Law of 1869, and I also think that, for the purposes of this case, the effect of a sale for arrears of revenue under Regulation VIII of 1819 is substantially the same as that of a sale for arrears of rent under Section 37 of the Rent Law. In either case the under-tenures are not ipso facto avoided by the sale, but are voidable only at the option of the purchasers.2. In the case of Unnoda Churn Dass Biswas v. Mothura Nath Dass Biswas I.L.R. 4 Cal. 860; s. c. 4 C.L.R. 6. the question which we have now to decide hardly considered. That case came up on appeal before my learned brothers and myself from a decision of Mr. Justice MARKbY and Mr. Justice Prinsep, who had differed as to the time within which a purchaser under the Rent Law was bound to bring a suit to cancel an under-tenure.3. Mr. Justice Markby thought that the purc...
Tag this Judgment!Rongai and ors. Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal513
Mitter, J.1. In this case three persons--Rongai, Gouri Khan and Beerai--were convicted under Section 457, coupled with Section 109, by an officer exercising the special powers vested in him under Section 36, Act X of 1872. They were each of them sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment on the 9th of December last. An appeal was presented to this Court on the 23rd of January last, and on the appeal coming on for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on the same day, the following order was passed: 'The appeal is admitted, send for the record and issue the usual notices.' The case being now called on before us to be heard finally a question has arisen,--whether this Court is competent to hear this case as an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the lower Court. It appears, with reference to the provision's of the old Code, that the provisions of the old Code and those of the new Code are not precisely the same. Under the old Code the test which determined the venu...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chunder Soor Vs. Kally Churn Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal528
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff (appellant) sued for possession of 2 1/4 bigas of land, which he claimed to have purchased absolutely from the respondent under a kobala, dated the 18th Aughran 1285 (3rd December 1878).2. The respondent admitted the kobala, but contended that the transaction between the plaintiff and himself was a mortgage only.3. In support of this view, the defendant relied partly upon oral evidence of the transaction, and partly upon the conduct of the parties, more especially the fact that the plaintiff had never taken possession, although the kobala was dated the 3rd December 1878, and this suit was not brought until the year 1880.4. He also relied upon the further fact, that the sum of Rs. 18, which was admitted to be the consideration for the kobala, was scarcely one-fourth the value of the property.5. The plaintiff all along objected to the reception of these facts in evidence upon the ground that the defendant was precluded by Section 92 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sripoti Churn Dey Vs. Mohip NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal643
Prinsep, J.1.The facts of this case are as follows: In Assin and Pous 1276 Ikram Rusul and others executed in favour of the plaintiff a mortgage by way of conditional sale of certain lands. They subsequently granted a mourasi mokurari patta of the same land to the defendant. The plaintiff took foreclosure proceedings under Regulation XVII of 1806, and notice was served upon the mortgagors, but not upon the defendant, and the plaintiff subsequently obtained a decree for possession against the mortgagors. He now sues to set aside the defendant's patta.2. The Subordinate Judge, reversing the decision of the Munsif, has held that the plaintiff's case fails on the ground that the defendant was entitled to redeem the plaintiff's mortgage and therefore ought to have been served with notice of foreclosure under Section 8 of the Regulation.3. We do not agree in this view. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of MacPherson and Glover, JJ. in Lalla Doorga Pershad v. Lalla Luc...
Tag this Judgment!indro NaraIn Gossami Vs. Ishan Chunder Bandopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal788
Prinsep, J.1. It has been found by the lower Appellate Court that the defendant, who held a decree against the plaintiff and others, agreed to take, and did take, from plaintiff Rs. 25, as representing his liability under this joint decree, and at the same time undertook to abstain from further proceedings, but that notwithstanding he persisted in executing the decree and sold certain property belonging to the plaintiff.2. The only question raised before us is, whether under the Code of Civil Procedure now in force, a suit will lie to set aside the sale of plaintiff's property as having been held fraudulently, and in breach of the undertaking on receipt of the money paid out of Court in satisfaction of the liability of the plaintiff judgment-debtor under the decree, whether the law (Section 258) having placed it in the power of a judgment-debtor making such a payment to obtain the assistance of the Court, within a certain specified period, to require the decree-holder to certify that p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »