Kolkata Court April 1883 Judgments
Kedarnath Mitter Vs. Surendro Deb Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal865
Cunningham, J.1. The plaintiff sues to have it declared that three documents, constituting his patni right in certain properties are in force, to be put in possession of the properties, and that the defendants may be ordered to execute a patni pottah in respect of the taluks recorded in the Collector's towjee and a mourasi and mokurari pottah in respect of the tikka and other mehals, and to accept a kabuliat for the same from the plaintiff.2. The first of these documents was dated 28th Pous 1283, and was executed by the defendants 1 and 2; the second was executed on 21st Bysack 1286 by the defendants 3 and 4, assenting to the terms of the first agreement; and the third on the 26th Srabun 1286 executed by the four defendants modifying the terms of the first.3. The questions raised in this appeal are, first whether the third document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration; and, secondly, whether, if it is inadmissible specific performance of the other two contracts can be d...
Tag this Judgment!Surnomoyee Vs. Denonath Gir Sunnyasee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal908
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, a zamindar, against three sets of defendants. Her claim is twofold (1st), for rent, cesses, and interest, amounting altogether to upwards of Rs. 5,000; and (2nd), for khas possession of the property in respect of which the rent is claimed.2. The history of the case is this. Previously to the year 1870 the property, which is the subject of the suit, was held by a person named Rajendra Gir Gossami. He, and his predecessors before him who belonged to some religious order, had held the property in question, under settlements made from time to time with the zamindar, and the last of these settlements, made with Rajendra Gir, dated the 26th of Choitro 1267 (9th April 1861), was for a term of five years, from the commencement of 1268 (13th April 1861) to the end of 1272, (12th April 1866) at an annual rent of Rs. 674-0-1. In that settlement there was a provision to this effect: 'if failing to pay the rent of the said jote, instalm...
Tag this Judgment!Dig NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Jumoona Persad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1
O'Kinealy, JJ.1. In this case plaintiff sues for possession of his share in certain properties sold in execution of a decree against his father and purchased by the defendant, or, if that cannot be done, he wishes that possession of the entire property may be given up to him, and that a decree, somewhat in the form of the decree given in the case of Deendyal Lal v. Jugdeep Narain Singh I.L.R. 3 Cal. 198 : L.R. 4 I.A. 247 should be passed in his favour. His mother is also a party to the suit on the ground that, according to Hindu law, when a partition of joint property is made, she is entitled to a share of the property in lieu of maintenance. The lands in dispute may be divided into two classes. In the first class fall parcels 1 to 6, which were purchased by the defendant in execution of his own decree; in the second class parcel No. 7, which the defendant purchased in execution of the decree of a third party. For the defence it was contended that the debts were debts due by the family...
Tag this Judgment!Ram DeIn Singh and ors. Vs. Het NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal871
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad in a suit upon a bond. The only question raised in the appeal is, whether the decree for interest from the date fixed in the bond for the repayment of the loan at the particular rate mentioned in the bond is correct or not. There is also another question raised,'viz., that the plaintiff's are not entitled to recover interest in excess of the principal. As regards the question of rate, the terms of the bond are quite plain. It says: I do declare and give out in writing that I shall, without any objection, repay the said amount, principal with interest at the rate of Rs. 1-4 per cent per mensem, on the 30th Bhadur 1277 Fusli. If I fail to do so on that date as promised, then on the expiration of that date, i.e., from the 1st Assin 1278 Fusil interest on the said amount of loan at the rate of Rs. 1-8 per cent per mensem, till the date of repayment, shall be due from me.' We are bound to decree the rat...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Taki Khan Alias Peer Bux Khan and anr. Vs. Najhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal872
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that this suit ought to be dismissed as barred under Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code. The defendant appellant before us brought a suit against the present plaintiffs, and also certain other persons, including the wives of the present plaintiffs, as defendants. That suit was for possession of a piece of land, which includes the disputed land. In that suit the plaintiffs alleged that they were in possession as ryots. The question whether they were entitled to remain in possession of the land as ryots or not, was not gone into, but on the 11th of September 1879 a decree for possession was given in favour of the defendant appellant, and the direction in the decree was that the plaintiff in that case, viz., the appellant before us, was to recover possession of the land claimed in the month of Pous 1287. In execution of that decree possession was obtained by the appellant. Thereupon the plaintiffs in this suit appeared as objectors, and contested the ri...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmony Jourdar Vs. Anund Chundra Mundul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal758
Macpherson, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is, whether land purchased by, a Hindu widow with money derived from the income of her life-estate, passes, when undisposed of by her, to the heirs of her husband as an increment to the estate, or to her heirs as her own property over which she had absolute control.2. It arises in this way: Gourmoni, a widow of one of three brothers, inherited her husband's one-third share of the family property. Being dispossessed by the other two brothers, she obtained against them decrees both for possession and for mesne profits, and in execution of the latter brought to sale and herself purchased their two-third share of the same property. Both Courts have found, and the fact is not now disputed, that this was an acquisition made out of the income of the property, in which she held a widow's life-estate, the purchase-money representing the usufruct of which she had been wrongfully deprived. Gourmoni was, however, under the necessity of borrowing ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Nath Sanyal and ors. Vs. Gour Hari Sanyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal738
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This appeal being set down for hearing on the Peremptory Board, the appellant on Friday last applied to us by petition to withdraw the appeal.2. Mr. Branson for the respondents objected, that if the appellant was allowed to withdraw his appeal, the respondents, who had filed cross objections, ought to be allowed to prefer a cross appeal.3. As, however, it did not appear under what circumstances the cross objections had been filed, we gave Mr. Branson an opportunity of satisfying us, upon affidavit, that his clients were ready to appeal, and would have appealed in due time if the appellant had not preferred his appeal first.4. The case accordingly came on again on Monday last, when Mr. Branson produced an affidavit made by the two plaintiffs (the respondents), from which it appeared that they had brought the suit to recover a moiety of certain mouzahs; that their claim had been decreed as to two of those mouzahs, but dismissed as to the rest; whereupon the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Krishna Tagore Vs. Fuzle Ali Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal843
Cunningham, J.1. In the suit out of which these appeals arise it is admitted that the plaintiff's father leased to the defendants on 30th Cheyt 1265 (12th April 1859) 4 deores 10 1/2 kanis of culturable land at an annual rent of Rs. 335-4.2. The lease provided that every fourth year a measurement should be made, either by the lessor or by the lessees, and additional rent paid for accretions to the land leased in 1859. It then provided for failure on the lessees' part to execute a kabuliat for the excess lands in the following terms:If at the fixed time stated above, we do not take an amin and cause measurement to be made, you will appoint an amin and cause the entire land of the said chur to be measured, and no objection on the ground of our recording or not our presence on such measurement chita shall be entertained, and we will duly file a separate dowl kabuliat for the excess land that will be found after deducting the settled land of the dowl executed by us from the land stated the...
Tag this Judgment!Hurrihur Mookerjee Vs. Kashi Nath Dass and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal898
Cunningham, J.1. The point raised in this appeal is that the Court below was in error in holding that the defendant was not entitled to plead, nor was the evidence tendered by him admissible to show that the document mentioned in the plaint as a deed of purchase was only a security for money. There has been some wavering of opinion at different periods among the Courts in this country as to the law of evidence on this point. The law for some periods was laid down, so far as concerned this Court, by the Full Bench Ruling in Kashi Nath Chatterjee v. Chandi Charan Banerjee B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 383: 5 W.R. 68 in which it was held that, though evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement was inadmissible to show that a document purporting to be an absolute conveyance was only a mortgage, yet that evidence might be given of the facts of the case, and of the subsequent conduct of the parties in order to show that this was the case.2. After the passing of the Evidence Act it was held by some learn...
Tag this Judgment!Sitanath Koer and ors. Vs. Land Mortgage Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal888
Mitter, J.1. The appellants before us are the five sons of one Chundermun Koer, viz., Silanath Koer, Gopinath Koer, Hera Lall Koer, Hurbuns Narain Koer, and Rughoobuns Narain Koer; and Mussamut Amilbutee Thakooranee, widow of Chundermun Koer, Hurbuns Narain and Rughoobuns Narain Koer are said to be minors. It was also stated in the course of the argument that the first four sons are at present adults, and were also adults on the 7th April 1873, when the mortgage bond, the origin of the present suit, was executed. There is some evidence in support of that statement. The lower Court has not expressed any opinion upon it, but we may take it as a fact proved that they were adults on the 7th April 1873. It appears that this bond of the 7th April 1873 was executed by Chundermun Koer and his eldest son Singheswar Koer, who was the defendant No. 6 in the lower Court, but who has not joined in the appeal which has been preferred to this Court. In this bond, which was for Rs. 10,000, a property ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »