Kolkata Court June 1883 Judgments
Situl Purshad Vs. Luchmi Purshad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal30
R.P. Collier, J.1. The sole question to be decided in both these appeals is whether the plaintiff, in the first appeal as assignee, in the second appeal as execution-creditor, of one Chuknarain Singh, derived from Chuknarain a right to redeem certain villages which he alleged to have been mortgaged by Chuknarain. On the part of the respondents it is not disputed that if he is correct in his interpretation of these deeds, and the villages were mortgaged, he has the right which he claims. But it is contended that the deeds in question did not create a mortgage, but were a sale of the property with a provision for its re-purchase on certain conditions personal to the mortgagor.2. In order to determine this question it is necessary to consider the circumstances under which the two documents which are relied upon, namely a potta and an ekrarnama of the 15th January 1864, were executed, as well as to examine the documents themselves.3. The circumstances were shortly these: Ramchurn was the e...
Tag this Judgment!Nimai Chand Keyal Vs. Hurry Churn Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal138
Prinsep, J.1. We think that this appeal should be decreed.2. The question in this case is whether a marriage in the Sagai form is valid among the class to which the parties to this suit belong. The Munsiff says: 'It is in vogue among them.' The Subordinate Judge comes to the same conclusion. It appears therefore that the existence of the custom is proved. The only question then for decision is whether a marriage in pursuance of it is legal. The Subordinate Judge has found that 'such a marriage is invalid on the ground that certain fines are paid to the zamindar, and no ceremonies of marriage are performed at Shunga, no priest officiates at it, and no rites take place as are necessary in marriage.' In page 79 of Mr. Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law it is laid down that a marriage according to the custom of a particular caste or of a particular place is sufficient.3. Here the Subordinate Judge is of opinion that no such marriage, would be valid unless priests officiate, and the usual marria...
Tag this Judgment!Nistarini Chowdrani and ors. Vs. Hurronath Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal74
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This appeal comes before us under rather peculiar circumstances.2. A dispute arose between the parties to the suit with regard to the boundary of their respective properties. The dispute was referred privately (without the intervention of a suit) to three arbitrators.3. These arbitrators, having taken evidence and made a local investigation, made an award in favour of the plaintiffs on the 7th of Srabun 1286 (22nd July 1879).4. The plaintiffs then petitioned under Section 525 of the Civil Procedure Code that the award should be filed in Court.5. To this petition objections were made on the part of the defendant, stating various reasons why the award should not be filed, and, amongst others, that the arbitrators had been guilty of partiality and other misconduct, which would be grounds for impugning the award under Sections 520 and 521 of the Code.6. Upon these objections being made, the first Court (apparently with the full consent of both parties) fixed an issue ...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Mortgage Bank of India, Limited Vs. Shyam Chand Koondoo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal695
Field, J.1. The Land Mortgage Bank of India is the plaintiff. The facts of the case are apparently somewhat complicated, but when they are understood, they really present no difficulty. The defendant No. 1, Shyam Chand Koondoo, was the 8-annas proprietor of a patni taluk, lot Buradakundi, arid as the result of certain litigation, to which I shall presently refer, the defendant No. 2, Durga Churn Shaha, was the proprietor of the other moiety of the same patni.2. Durga Churn Shaha, on the 8th of March 1872, mortgaged his 8-annas share to the Bank. The mortgage debt not having been discharged, the Bank took steps upon the mortgage bond, and having obtained a decree was about to bring the 8-annas share belonging to Durga Churn Shaha to sale, when one Shoshi Bhoosan Shaha came in and preferred a claim, alleging a title in himself to half of Durga Churn Shaha's moiety, that is, a 4-annas share of the entire patni.3. This claim was at the time successful, and in consequence the Bank, abstaini...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjankhan Vs. Ramjan Chamar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal89
O'Kinealy, J.1. In this suit plaintiff sued for arrears o rent under Beng. Act I of 1879, called the ' Chota Nagpore Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act,' and for ejectment by reason of non-payment of rent. A preliminary objection has been raised that no appeal lies in such a suit, and in order to see whether an appeal is prevented it is necessary to look at the terms of the Act.3. Section 37, Clause 4, describes one class of suits that are triable under the Act--'all suits for arrears of rent due on account of land either rent-paying or rent-free, or on account of any rights of pasturage, forest rights, fisheries, or the like.' Then comes Clause 5, which says: 'All suits to eject any ryot, or to cancel any lease on account of the non-payment of arrears of rent, or on account of a breach of the conditions of any contracts by which a ryot may be liable to ejectment, or a lease may be liable to be cancelled.' Whejiwe turn to Section 88 we find, 'any person desiring to eject a ryot, or to c...
Tag this Judgment!Ralli Vs. Gau Kim Swee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal939
Norris, J.1. We are of opinion that the document is admissible. Mr. Jackson says that it is not proved to be a copy within the meaning of Section 63 of the Evidence Act, and that if it is a copy at all it comes under Sub-section 3. The witness says: 'The copy now produced is a copy of the original, and I know it to be so.' Mr. Jackson says that that is not sufficient to show that the document is a copy made from or compared with the original. I think the fair interpretation is that the witness knew it to be a copy made from the original from personal knowledge. Then was there an original document? The evidence shows that a letter was sent to the Boston Dye Wood Company, and that certain action was taken upon it.2. Then is this copy admissible in evidence? Section 65 says: 'Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases:(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the d...
Tag this Judgment!Amirunessa Khatoon and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal63
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case, which we heard yesterday, the suit was brought to set aside a revenue sale under Act XI of 1859.2. For this purpose the plaintiffs relied upon certain irregularities, which are said to have occurred in carrying out the sale itself: and also, as the plaintiffs alleged, that their tehsildar had colluded with the servants of the defendant No. 1, who was the purchaser, to make default in payment of the revenue so as to bring about the sale of the property, and enable the defendant No. 1 to buy it at a low price.3. The lower Court dismissed the suit upon the ground that the alleged irregularities were not (for various reasons) available to the plaintiffs; and with regard to the alleged fraudulent collusion the Court said this:It was argued that there was fraud on the part of the purchaser at the sale, inasmuch as he colluded with the servant of the plaintiffs, who made default in the payment of Government revenue; but under Section 33, Act XI of 1859, no ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirty Chunder Mitter Vs. Anath Nath Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal97
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff for a partition of a large estate of which he purchased an eight annas share in the year 1878, under the following circumstances:The estate in question was part of a much larger property situate partly in Calcutta, and partly in the Mofussil, which belonged jointly to the defendant and one Monmotho Nath Dey, in equal shares.3. By a mortgage made in the English form, dated the 12th of March 1869, Monmotho Nath Dey mortgaged to the defendant his half share in the estate in question, subject to the usual proviso for redemption.4. Default having been made in payment of the mortgage money, a suit was brought in this Court by the present defendant in the year 1873 against the mortgagor for the recovery of the principal sum and interest and for other relief.5. On the 7th of July of the same year the High Court made a decree by consent of the parties, by which an account was to be taken in the usual way, to ascertain the amount due f...
Tag this Judgment!Shumbhoo Nath Poddar Vs. Luckynath Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal920
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This was a Letters Patent Appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Field, confirming the judgments of both the lower Courts. The question depends upon what is the proper construction to be put upon Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The appeal was heard some time ago; but it stood over for a time, until Mr. Justice Field and myself had decided a case (second appeal No. 211 of 1882) which was supposed to involve a somewhat similar question under Section 246 of the Code.3. That case has now been decided Hury Dayal Guho v. Din Doyal Guho ante p. 479 but the decision will not much assist us in the solution of the present question, which is this: whether, when assets have been realized by sale or otherwise in execution of a decree, and more persons than one have prior to the realization applied to the Court, by which such assets are held, for execution of decrees for money against the same judgment-debtor, the assets are to be divided among such persons, although ...
Tag this Judgment!Bijadhur Bhugut Vs. Monohur Bhugut
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal11
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that in this case there is no appeal, because the proceedings in the lower Court were held under Sections 525 and 526 of the Civil Procedure Code. While rejecting this appeal upon this ground, we are at the same time of opinion that the lower Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, in deciding the question raised in the second issue mentioned in its judgment, viz., whether the defendant did not agree to the terms of the ekrarnama, and they were fraudulently made. It appears from Section 526 that the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate only upon the grounds of objection mentioned in Sections 520 and 521. Now, the defendant's objection that he did not agree to the terms of the ekrarnama, and that he was imposed upon in being persuaded to put his signature to the particular ekrarnama, which was the foundation of the award in this case, is not one which comes within the purview of Sections 520 and 521. When an objection of this nature was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›