Kolkata Court March 1884 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.
Kannye Loll Sett and anr. Vs. Nistoriny Dossee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal443
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The Judge of the Small Cause Court has made a mistake in this case.2. Whenever the subject of a mortgage is leasehold property, and the mortgagee is put in possession of it, under circumstances which amount to an assignment or transfer of the leasehold interest, the mortgagee becomes liable, as a rule, to pay the rent. But in this case there is no doubt about the matter, because the mortgagee has not only obtained possession, but has had her name entered in the landlord's books as the tenant of the property in the place of Toolamoney. Nistoriny is, therefore, liable for the rent, and the suit must be dismissed altogether as against Toolamoney.3. The Small Cause Court Judge appears to have been misled by the language of Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act, but it will be found that neither that section, which relates to mortgagees in possession, nor Section 65, which relates to the duties of mortgagors, contain any rules applicable to cases like the present....
Ramjan Mohaldar Vs. Kirte Mohaldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal523
Field, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken in this case, viz., that no appeal will lie because the suit is one of the Small Cause Court class being a suit for damages. Section 586 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that 'no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable in Courts of Small Causes, etc.' The present appeal is not a second appeal. It is an appeal from an order falling under Clause 28 of Section 588. Section 589 provides as follows: An appeal from any order specified in Section 588, Clauses (15), (16) and (17), shall lie to the High Court. 'When an appeal from any other order, that is, any other order than the orders specified in Clauses (15), (16) and (17), is allowed by this chapter,' (and it is clear that an appeal under Clause 28 comes within this description), it shall lie to the Court to which an appeal would lie from the decree in the suit in relation to which such order was made, or, when such order is passed by a Court (not being a High Cou...
Prandhone Pykura Vs. Arut Sahoo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal502
Tottenham, J.1. This was a suit to eject the defendant, after notice to quit, from a small piece of homestead land in respeot of which it has been found that no right of occupancy could be acquired,2. The estate was at one time the property of Government, and as a khas mehal it was settled ryotwari for a period of 30 years from 1247 B. Section In that Settlement the defendant was recorded as tenant of the land in suit at a rent of nine annas seven pies per annum. Subsequently the plaintiff became proprietor of the estate. The first Court held that by virtue of the Settlement made by Government the defendant acquired a title to hold the land at the same rent until a new Settlement should be made; and that this action to eject him would not lie.3. The lower Appellate Court was of opinion that the fact that defendant had been permitted to hold the land for a lengthened period at a small rent was not per se sufficient to protect him from ejectment by the owner; and could see nothing in the...
Luckhi Ram Vs. Salamat HosseIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal521
Tottenham, J.1. The only question laid before us in this appeal is whether or not the right to receive a certain monthly allowance is seizable and saleable hi execution of a decree. The appellant, Salamat Hossein, who is the party entitled to the allowance, mortgaged it under a bond executed by himself and other persons to the plaintiff respondent in consideration of a loan advanced by the latter. The decree provides for the realization of the amount due by the sale in the first place of the mortgaged property.2. It is contended that the right to receive the allowance is not property which can be seized in execution under Section 266 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It seems to us that, under the circumstances, it is saleable, for it is shown to be a heritable right derived by the appellant from his deceased wife to whom it was assigned in lieu of her share of landed property. It is thus not a mere right to maintenance, nor anything else exempted by the proviso to Section 266; and as th...
Hanuman Kamat Vs. Dowlut Mundar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal528
Tottenham, J.1. This suit was brought to obtain possession of a 2 1/2 annas share of a certain mouzah by virtue of a conveyance executed in the plaintiff's favour on the 1st of August 1879 by Dowlut Mundar, defendant No. 1. Plaintiff was unable to get possession by reason of the opposition of defendants 2 and 7, a son and grandson of Dowlut, who set themselves up as the exclusive owners of the property claimed by plaintiff, and denied that Dowlut had any interest in it.2. The other five defendants are all sons of Dowlut.3. The suit in the Courts below, and the present appeal to this Court, have been defended by only defendants Nos. 2 and 7, and since the appeal was filed, the defendant No. 1, Dowlut Mundar, has died. A moiety of the village in question has been found to be the joint property of the seven defendants, composing a family governed by the Mithila law. And the question before us is, whether the alienation made by the father, Dowlut, is binding upon the son and grandson who c...
Luchmeshur Singh Vs. Sheo Sohye Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal577
Mitter, J.1. The only point upon which we called upon the respondent to answer this appeal is the question of limitation. The Court of First Instance found that the dispossession of the plaintiff's predecessor in title took place in the year 1860. There was no appeal against that finding by the defendant. There was an appeal by the plaintiff-respondent before us, and the District Judge throwing the onus of proof upon the defendant, came to the conclusion that it was not made out by him that the dispossession took place earlier than 1870. The District Judge in throwing the onus of proof on the defendant followed certain decisions cited by him, but these decisions have been since considered in a Full Bench case, Mahomed Alt Khan v. Khaja Abdul Gunny I.L.R. 9 Cal. 744, and they have been explained as referring to certain peculiar circumstances which distinguished them from ordinary cases where limitation is pleaded. In the Full Bench decision it was laid down as a general rule that the bu...
Raj Coomar Lall and ors. Vs. Bissessur Dyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal688
Field, J.1. The position of the family in this case will appear from the following genealogical tree:PAHAR SINGH.________________________________|___________________________________| | | Bhagwant Singh. Kulwanth Singh Srichand. | | | _______________|____________________________________| | | |Amrit. Chandan. Banwari, married Badam Koer. Daughter.| | |__________|_____________ Ram Guman. || | |Nowrungi Lal, Amani, Bissessur Dyal,Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1.|Five sons = Plaintiffs.2. Pahar Singh had three sons--Bhagwant Singh, Kulwanth Singh and Srichand. Of these three Srichand died without issue. Bhagwant Singh had a son, Amrit. Amrit had two sons, NowrungiLal and Amani. Nowrungi is defendant No. 2, Amani is defendant No. 3, and is said to have been born blind and therefore incapable of inheriting. Nowrungi had five sons, who are the five plaintiffs in the present case. Kulwanth Singh had two sons, Chandan, who died in Bhadro 1276, and Banwari, who died leaving a wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›