Kolkata Court May 1883 Judgments
Guru Dass Biswas Vs. Kunnock Chunder Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal919
Cunningham, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, having sued for enhanced rent for the year 1286 (1879), can now sue for the original rent for the years 1284, 1285 and 1286 (1877, 1878, and 1879).2. The lower Appellate Court has found that the one action is no bar to the other. We feel it impossible to concur in this opinion. It appears to us that, looking at the wording of Sections 42 and 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clearly the intention of the Legislature that plaintiffs should bring their entire claim and every remedy enforceable in respect of that claim into Court at once, and that if they fail to do that in any suit, they cannot afterwards avail themselves of any other remedy on which they have not chosen to insist in the first suit.3. It is true that the Privy Council have pointed out that a suit for enhanced rent and a suit for rent are very different proceedings. None the less are they, in our opinion, remedies or claims arising in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Jugut Shobhun Chunder Alias Doolal Chunder Dehingur Gossamy Vs. Binaud ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal925
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case, which is somewhat similar in its nature to others which have been appealed from the Assam Valley Districts, we are sorry to find that the District Judge has again taken an erroneous view of the law.2. The plaintiff sued to have it declared that he is entitled to an eight-anna share in certain immoveable property, and to have his name registered as the owner of that share in the Revenue Court.3. His case is, that his father was the owner of the property in question, and that he and his brother, the defendant No 1, inherited it in equal shares. At the time of his father's death, which occurred on the 2nd of Joisto 1277 (17th May 1870), the plaintiff and his brother were both minors, and consequently their step-mother, Chunder Coomary, who appears to have acted as their guardian, had her name recorded in the Revenue Court as the owner of one portion of the property, whilst another portion remained in the name of the plaintiff's father, to whom a pottah ...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Khan Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal878
Prinsep, J.1. We think that no appeal lies in this case. Section 406 provides expressly for an appeal on behalf of a person required by a Magistrate, other than the District Magistrate or a Presidency Magistrate, to give security for good behaviour, and the law nowhere declares that any appeal shall lie in other cases of this class. The order moreover is not a conviction on a trial held by a Sessions Judge (Section 410), nor a sentence of the District Magistrate subject to the confirmation of the Sessions Judge (Section 408a), and, therefore under Section 404 no appeal would lie....
Tag this Judgment!Johur Mull Khoorba Vs. Tarankisto Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal252
Pigot, J.1. The plaintiff claims as a purchaser of the share and interest of Woopendra Narain (who is mentioned in the 7th, 9th, and 14th paragraphs of the plaint) in certain family property in which Woopendra Narain is stated to have had an interest, together with the defendants, or those whom they represent, by inheritance, and also under the provisions of the deed mentioned in the 9th paragraph of the plaint.2. Woopendra Narain mortgaged his share in the property (described in the plaint simply as lots one to five); and under a decree in a suit brought on the mortgage, the property mentioned in the mortgage was sold under the Rules for the sale of mortgaged property.3. The plaintiff became a purchaser of part of the property at the sale by the Registrar under the decree, and he now prays for a declaration of his rights under the purchase; be submits that he is entitled to specific shares in the properties mentioned, and prays in the alternative for a declaration as to how much he so...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: J.T. Froeschman (Deceased)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1883
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal575
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I agree with the Taxing officer that only half the property of the deceased is chargeable with the ad valorem duty payable under Article 11, Schedule I of the Court Fees Act....
Tag this Judgment!Ashad Ally Beparee and ors. Vs. Modum Mohun Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal68
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case sue for possession of certain immoveable property. They claim under a deed executed by the defendant on the 13th Falgoon 1261 (28th February 1855), which is called in the plaint a kutkabala, but which, upon the face of it, appears to be an absolute sale to the plaintiffs, for the sum of Rs. 275.2. It seems, however, that there was a verbal arrangement between the parties that the transaction should really be a mortgage, and that the money advanced should be paid off with interest at the rate of one per cent, per mensem in Bysakh 1262 (April 1855); the acts and conduct of the parties appear to have been entirely in favour of that view, and both the lower Courts concur in finding that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale.3. That being so, the question comes to be one of limitation, and it arises in this way.4. It appears that in the year 1263 (1856), the plaintiffs took the usual proceedings to foreclose the mortgage, and after t...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Bahadoor Singh and ors. Vs. E. Solano and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal45
Mitter, J.1. This was a suit to recover possession of 113 beegahs 5 cottahs of land in mouzah Mozufferpore. It appears that mouzah Mozufferpore was the estate of Koer Singh. It was confiscated for his rebellion, and was sold by Government in the year 1861. At that sale the defendants' predecessor in title, Mr. E. Solano, became the purchaser. The estate then continued in the possession of Mr. Solano till the year 1878, when it was sold for arrears of Government revenue, and purchased by the present plaintiffs. This suit was commenced on the 23rd May 1879, and there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiffs, after their auction-purchase, did not receive any rent on account of the land in suit from the defendants, who are the executors of the estate of Mr. Solano. The defence in the case was that, although the estate was sold for arrears of revenue, Mr. Solano had another interest in the land in suit, viz., a gujashtadaree interest. In the second paragraph of the written stat...
Tag this Judgment!Aubhoy Churn Bagchi Vs. Debendra Nath Shaw and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal905
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I have had some doubt whether we have any right to entertain this appeal; but after considering the authorities, I think an appeal lies.2. It is not easy (as observed by Jackson, J.), to ascertain precisely what was the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Sashti Charan Chatterjee v. Tarak Chandra Chatterjee 8 B.L.R. 315 but it seems to me that the majority of the Judges at least decided this that when an award has been made and judgment is given by the first Court in accordance with that award, the judgment is final--(see Section 325 of the old Code, corresponding with Section 522 of the present Code), but that when there is no award, that is no legal award, then the judgment of the first Court is open to appeal. It seems to follow from this, that when the question is, whether the award is a legal award or not, an appeal lies from the judgment.3. And that, as it seems to me, is the case here. The question raised is, whether the three arbitrators under the ci...
Tag this Judgment!Akroomoni ChowdhraIn Vs. Lakhimoni Chowdhrain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal851
Cunningham, J.1. The order of the Sub-Registrar, which was the commencement of the proceedings out of which this suit has arisen, sets forth certain circumstances which occurred before him in connection with the application for registration. It then went on to state that Moheem, the person applying for registration, had stated that it was not his deed, and that he did not pay the fees on being asked for them. It then continued the deed has not agreeably to Section 42, Clause 7 of the rule in force been presented by a proper person, and the fees have not according to Section 66 been paid. Therefore, the registration of the deed is rejected.'2. From this order there was an appeal to the Registrar who passed the following order: 'The rural Sub-Registrar was right in refusing registration, as he was unable to satisfy himself that it had been presented by a person authorized to do so, and because the proper fee was not paid. Appeal dismissed.'3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant th...
Tag this Judgment!Mothuranath Chattopadhya and ors. Vs. Dagai Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal854
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the question raised is, whether the gift of a house in a case in which the donor reserved to himself the right of remaining in the house for the term of his life, and which was unaccompanied by any act of physical delivery, or any symbolical act by which physical delivery could be held to be implied, is valid.2. No case supporting the view of the respondent that such a gift is valid has been brought to our knowledge.3. In the present instance the donees appear to have never in any way had delivery of the house, and the only incident which can be regarded as symbolical of delivery is registration of the deed of gift.4. With regard to registration it was contended by the respondent that the Full Bench Ruling in Narain Chunder Cuckerbutty v. Dataram Roy I.L.R. 8 Cal. 597 had laid down that possession was necessary neither for a sale nor a gift. We find, however, that the learned Judges in that case confined themselves strictly to a case where there has been a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »