Kolkata Court February 1883 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.
Raj Coomar Nobodeep Chunder Deb Burmono Vs. Beer Chunder Manikkya and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal535
McDonell, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Tipperah, by which the plaintiff, respondent, was declared to be entitled to maintenance from the Maharajah of Hill Tipperah at the rate of Rs. 600 per mensem and to arrears of the same from the 1st of May 1878 to the date of institution of the suit; and the decree further provided that the amount should be realized from the defendant's zamindari in British Tipperah.2. The plaintiff, respondent, is Raj Coomar Nobodeep Chunder, a son of the late Maharajah of Hill Tipperah, and appointed by him to the office of kurta in the year 1862. Upon the death of this Maharajah, Ishan Chunder, he was succeeded by the present Maharajah Beer Chunder, who had been duly appointed 'juboraj' by his predecessor and elder brother. In July 1874, the plaintiff made an attempt to oust him altogether. He brought a suit to recover possession of various properties held by the Maharajah in British India, upon the ground that he was the rightf...
RamnaraIn Kallia Vs. Monee Bibee and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal735
Norris, J.1. I think this rule must be discharged. It states no grounds whatever, and in granting the rule I did not intend that it should be drawn up as it has been. If it had been properly drawn up I should have been in a position to hear it, but as it stands now it must be discharged and under circumstances discharged with costs. I will grant liberty to apply, on affidavit, for a fresh rule, and I direct that the decree in the suit be not drawn up until the rule is disposed of as I shall give Mr. Pugh every facility for bringing this matter to a hearing....
Rughoobeer Persad and ors. Vs. Jutadhari Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal508
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs are the minor sons of one Jubhoo Sahoo. It appears that Jubhoo Lal Sahoo had brought a suit against the defendant No. 2, in this case, viz., Dukhit Sahoo, for recovery of possession of a house and for recovery of the rent due on account of that house. This suit was dismissed on the 9th of October 1874, and Jubhoo Lal was made liable for costs. Against that decree Jubhoo Lal preferred an appeal, and while that appeal was pending Jubhoo Lal died. The appeal was then prosecuted by Mohabeer Persad, who was the sole adult son of Jubhoo Lal, the other two sons, the plaintiffs in this case, being minors. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was made liable for costs. The decrees for costs passed by the Court of First Instance as well as by the Court of Appeal, having been sold by the defendant No. 2 to. the defendant No. 1, Jutadhari Lal, the appellant before us, they were executed, and the property now in suit was sold in execution, and purchased by Jutadha...
Panioty Vs. Protab Chunder Chuckerbutty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal506
Wilson, J.1. We think there is no ground for interfering with the order made in this case. The question is whether the Court below ought to have set aside the sale in execution under the terms of Section 313 of the Procedure Code. That section says: 'The purchaser at any such sale may apply to the Court to set aside the sale, on the ground that the person whose property purported to be sold had no saleable interest therein. '. It is said in this case that the judgment debtor had no saleable interest in the property, on the ground that the property had been mortgaged, and that before the sale to the present appellant a decree in a suit on the mortgage had been obtained. We are not prepared to lay down broadly the proposition that wherever there is a mortgage on the property and a mortgage decree has been obtained, there is no saleable interest in the judgment-debtor. We are asked so to hold on the authority of the case of Naharmul Murwari v. Sadut Ali 8 C.L.R. 468. We do not understand ...
The Oriental Bank Corporation and ors. Vs. Gobind Lall Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal604
Norris, J.1. The facts of this case are shortly as follows: One Heera Lall Seal died intestate on 17th March 1876, and his estate is now being administered by the Court. The accounts taken in the administration suit do not disclose assets sufficient to pay all the creditors in full, and this suit has been brought by the plaintiff Banks, in the nature of a supplemental suit to the original administration suit, with the view of obtaining a declaration that Heera Lall Seal was at the date of his death entitled to a one-fifth share in the property comprised in a certain Indenture of Settlement made by his father Mutty Lall Seal, and dated 21st February 1848, and that his (Heera Lall's) representatives in estate are now, as such and subject to the liquidation of Heera Lall's debts, entitled to the said one-fifth share, thus seeking to make available a very considerable estate for distribution amongst the general body of creditors.2. The suit purports to be brought by the plaintiffs 'on beha...
Noorzahan Vs. Musyatulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal808
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff sues to eject the defendant, stating that he has no occupancy rights, and that notice to quit has been regularly served on him.2. It has been found by the lower Appellate Court that the defendant and his father have been actual cultivators for many years, and that the defendant in 1282 had acquired rights of occupancy; but the District Judge goes on to find that inasmuch as, on the defendant's own admission, he has paid no rent to any one for five years, he has lost those rights of occupancy, and consequently is liable to be dispossessed after notice.3. It has been settled by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Duli Chand v. Rajkissore (ante, p, 88: 11 C.L.R., 326) and we agree in that judgment, that a ryot having a right of occupancy cannot be legally ejected unless under an order regularly obtained under Section 52 of the Rent Law, that is to say, under a decree for arrears of rent unsatisfied within fifteen days from the date on wh...
Muthura Persad Singh and anr. Vs. Luggun Kooer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal615
Wilson, J.1. We think that the Subordinate Judge has decided this case rightly. He says: I am of opinion that the stipulation made as to the payment of interest at the rate of Rs. 2 per cent per mensem from the time of the execution of the bond, in case of default of repayment of the loan in time, was laid down in the deed as a check upon the debtor, and it should undoubtedly be held as a penal clause.'2. Several cases were cited to us in which full effect has been given to an agreement, that if money is not paid at the due date it shall from that time bear an' increased rate of interest-Boolakee Lall v. Radha Singh 22 W.R. 223; Mackintosh v. Wingrove I.L.R. 4 Cal. 137.3. The former of these cases probably dealt with a document executed before the Contract Act; but however that may be such cases differ materially from the present. In them the agreement to pay an increased rate of interest from a future day may well be regarded as a substantive part of the contract, not as penalty for i...
Huro Prasad Roy Chowdhry Vs. Chundee Churn Boyragee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal505
Wilson, J.1. We think that in this case there is no ground for interfering with the decision of the Court below.2. The suit was for enhancement of rent of a holding. It appears that the holding of the defendant was a tenure created under a certain amulnama. We must take it, the document itself not being before us, that the terms of the document are correctly stated in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. It is there stated: 'It appears from the rubokaris and amulnama, dated 8th February 1849, that the land of this tenure was originally taken for the express purpose of clearing jungles. It was a khalari land. After the abolition of salt-manufacture, it became covered with jungle. The authorities thought it proper to let it out to the best advantage. As labour and capital must be laid out before this land could be brought into cultivation, it was thought fit to make a jungleburi tenure in favour of the defendants, the maximum rent whereof was fixed at 8 annas per bigha. Under the r...
Bidhu Bhushun Basu and ors. Vs. Komaraddi Mundul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal864
Cunningham, J.1. This was a suit for rent at an enhanced rate. The defence raised was that the notice of enhancement was signed, not by the whole body of landlords, but by the plaintiffs alone, who held an eight annas share, and separately collected their rent from the defendants. The question we have to decide in second appeal is, whether this notice was good. This question has, in our opinion, been decided in the affirmative by the observations of the Chief Justice in the Full Bench case of Chuni Singh v. Hera Mahto I.L.R. 7 Cal. 633. We understand the meaning of the Chief Justice to be that a suit by a portion of the co-sharers for rent at an enhanced rate may be brought, provided the other co-sharers are joined in the suit either as plaintiffs or defendants; and that, in such a case, notice may be duly given by that portion of the co-sharers by which the 'suit is instituted. We think, therefore, that the question is no longer open to discussion. The present appeal must accordingly ...
Ram Coomar Dey Vs. Shushee Bhooshun Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal626
Cunningham, J.1. We think that the construction put by the Court below upon Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure was correct, and that the case of Naharmul Marwari v. Sadut Ali 8 C.L.R. 468 does not bind us, because in that case the learned Judges considered that a state of things had come about in which the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest. In the present instance it is admitted that he has a saleable interest to the extent of eight annas. That being so we think we cannot hold that the case falls within the scope of Section 313. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »