Kolkata Court March 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.
Pearay Bhugut Vs. Ram NaraIn Sing
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal830
Prinsep, J.1. This case depends upon the proper construction of a deed of grant from a husband to his wife. The document sets forth that it conveys all his rights to the lady without exception; that she shall take possession of his property; that neither he nor his heirs shall at any time have any claim either to the property or to the price or value of it.2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant, first, that, unless there are express terms in the grant, such as will convey ordinarily an estate of inheritance, the gift must be taken to be only one lasting for the lifetime of the lady. In support of the contention we have been referred to the case of Koonj Behary Dhur v. Prem Chand Dutt I.L.R. 5 Cal. 684: 5 C.L.R. 561 and, no doubt, if one sentence of that judgment be taken by itself, it would support the contention now raised before us. But when we look at the case as a whole, we find that the learned Judges who expressed that opinion were not content to base their judgment ...
Srishteedhur Biswas Vs. Mudan Sirdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal648
Wilson, J.1. The question for decision here is, shortly, whether occupant cultivators who have asserted a transferable right in their lands and sold that right to a stranger without giving up their occupation, are liable to ejectment by the superior landlord, whom they may have repudiated in a suit brought against them for arrears of rent, and set themselves up as tenants of the purchaser.2. Fortunately this question has been considered on several occasions by this Court.3. In Narendra Narain Roy Chowdhry v. Ishan Chandra Sen 13 B.L.R. 274; S.C. 22 W.R. 22 it was ruled that the transferee of occupant rights, illegally sold, could be ejected if he had entered into actual possession of the land. The principle involved in that case was the abandonment by the tenant of his connection with the land, and the landlord's consequent right to re-enter. This principle is re-asserted in Ram Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Bholanath Lushkur 22 W.R. 200 and is also referred to in a recent judgment delivered...
Cally Nath Bundopadhya Vs. Koonjo Behary Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal651
Wilson, J.1. The facts found in this case are as follows:2. The disputed property was mortgaged to the plaintiff and the father of defendants 4 and 5 in Pous 1273 (December 1866). They obtained a summary decree under the Registration Act XX of 1866 in May 1868.3. The property was again mortgaged to defendants 1 and 2 in March 1869. They sued on their mortgage-bond, obtained a decree, sold the property in execution, and bought it themselves in December 1874.4. The plaintiff now sues the first and second defendants to enforce his share of the mortgage-debt against the property in their hands, joining the fourth and fifth defendants as the representatives of his co-mortgagee.5. The District Judge affirming the Munsif has dismissed the suit on two grounds:6. First, he has held that the plaintiff's suit is improperly framed, and that he cannot sue; for his share of the mortgage-debt. We think it very doubtful whether, on the construction of the mortgage-deed, this is so, whether the transac...
Chundi Churn Mookerjee and ors. Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal849
McDonell, J.1. The appellant has been convicted before the Chief Presidency Magistrate of an offence against Section 22 of Act XII of 1875, by improperly discharging ballast from the ship Ben Nevis, by the boats of Bishto Manjhi and Nufur Manjhi, by throwing it into the river within the Port of Calcutta, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250. The amount of the fine entitles the accused to appeal to this Court.2. In our opinion the conviction is bad in law, for the facts proved or admitted do not establish any offence under the Act against the appellant. The first Clause of Section 22 prohibits the casting of ballast or rubbish in the port without lawful excuse.3. The next clause prescribes a penalty for whoever by himself or another so casts or throws the same, and for the master of any vessel from which the same is cast or thrown. It seems to us that to warrant the conviction under this section of a person, not being master of a vessel from which ballast is thrown, it must b...
Toolseeram Bera Vs. Golam Abed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal861
Prinsep, J.1. The property, which is the subject of the present appeal, was attached by the Magistrate under Section 1721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act X of 1872) in consequence of the proprietor Boidonath Dutt absconding when accused of committing a criminal offence. The date of the attachment is stated to be the 7th of August 1878. Subsequently a third person, who held a decree against Boidonath Dutt, proceeded to execute it, and attached the same property, which was sold to the plaintiff on the 15th of January 1879. Notwithstanding these proceedings the attachment under the order of the Magistrate still continued, and it appears that, as Boidonath Dutt did not appear within the period specified in the proclamation issued under Section 171, the property at once became (to use the terms of Section 172) 'at the disposal of Government.' We understand by this expression that it came under the absolute control of Government to dispose of, or deal with it, in whatever manner might...
C.N. Stephen Vs. G. Stephen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal901
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The defendant No. 3 is the sole appellant in this case, and the only ground of appeal is, that at the time when the promissory note was given, he, the defendant No. 3, was a minor.2. The facts were these: The defendant No. 1 is the father of the defendant No. 3, and it appears that in September 1877, before the defendant No. 3 had attained the age of 18 years, the defendant No. 1 petitioned the District Judge of Dacca for a certificate of administration (under Section 3 of the Minor's Act XL of 1858) to the property of the defendant No. 3.3. On the 10th of December 1879 the Judge made an order for a certificate of administration under that Act, and on the 10th December 1881 the certificate was issued.4. But meanwhile, between September 1877 and the 10th of December 1879, when the Judge made the order, the defendant No. 3 had attained the age of 18 years; and the note in question was given on the 27th of October 1880, before the certificate was issued.5. In this st...
Sharat Chunder Ghose and ors. Vs. Kartik Chunder Mitter and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal810
Prinsep, J.1. On the 10th of March 1877 Kartik Chunder Mitter brought a suit against the present plaintiffs, as represented by their mother and guardian Modhumoti Dassee, to recover a sum of money said to have been borrowed by Showrobini, a Hindu widow then in possession of the estate, which has since passed from her hands. Three days later, and before any proceedings had been taken on the plaint to that suit, in fact before even summonses had been issued, Modhumoti's pleader filed a petition of ekbaljamah, consenting to a decree in favour of Kartik Chunder for a portion of the amount sued for. A few days later a decree was passed in accordance with this petition. One of the three minor defendants in that case has now attained majority, and for himself, and also on behalf of his minor brothers, sues to get rid of the effect of that decree in consequence of its having been put into execution against him by the attachment of some of his property.2. The District Judge on appeal has merely...
Peary Mohun Banerjee Vs. Bacharam Mundul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal813
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover possession of certain lands as mal, on the ground that his title had been impugned by an adverse order in the case No. 1654 of 1879. The defendants denied that the lands were mal, and claimed them as their rent-free holding.2. The first Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the onus of proving that the land was lakheraj lay upon the defendants, and finding that they had not proved it to be so, he decreed the claim. The findings of fact upon which his decision is based are--first, that the defendants are the plaintiff's tenants in respect of certain mal lands; and, second, that the lands which are alleged to be lakheraj, and which form the subject of this suit, are within the ambit of the plaintiff's zamindari. In the case of Hurryhur Mukhopadhya v. Madhub Chunder Baboo 8 B.L.R. 566 : 14 Moore's 1. A. 153 their Lordships of the Privy Council declared that in suits for the resumption of lands...
Chunder NaraIn Singh Vs. Kishen Chand Golecha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal855
Prinsep, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, having obtained a decree against the Official Assignee for arrears of rent due on a patni tenure, attempted to sue out execution by attachment and sale of the tenure for which the arrears are due. The Official Assignee objected and stated that the landlord was not entitled to sell the tenure, but must come in like any other creditor. Neither of the Courts state whether the arrears said to have been due accrued before the property of the insolvent vested in the Official Assignee, or while it was under his charge. If the Official Assignee neglected to disclaim or get rid of the lease, he would become liable for the rent due after the property of the insolvent debtor vested in him. This is clear from Ex parte Davis L.E. 3 Ch. D., 463 and Ex parte Dressler L.R. 9 Ch. D., 252 But even if the arrears were due from the insolvent before he took the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, we think that the landlord was entitled to sell the tenure. This v...
Ramsodoy Ghose Vs. Nilmadhub Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal857
Prinsep, J.1. In this case the decree, which was drawn up by consent of parties, declares that the decretal amount should be paid in instalments, namely, Rs. 25 in Cheyt 1283, in Assin and Cheyt of each year from 1284 to 1289, Rs. 25, and in Assin 1290, Rs. 25. It also provides that the decree-holder on default of payment of any instalment may execute the decree for the whole amount not paid. In Cheyt 1283 a default was made; but notwithstanding three instalments were afterwards received by the judgment-creditor.2. The question now is, whether the application to execute the decree having been filed more than three years after Cheyt 1283, when the entire amount could be realised in execution on failure to pay an instalment, execution is not barred by limitation, or whether it can be executed for the amount of the remaining instalments within three years from the time when each became due.3. The Munsiff dismissed the application.4. We have had the decree read out to us, and, though it is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »