Kolkata Court June 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.
ishan Chunder Roy Vs. Ashanoollah Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal817
Field, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of: Tipperah, dated 18th August 1883, refusing to stay the execution of a decree. The facts of the case are briefly these: The decree-holder obtained a previous; decree for enhancement of the rent of certain taluqs. That decree, together with other decrees for the rents of these taluqs for subsequent years, is at present under appeal to the Privy Council. The years, the rents of which are thus sub judice, are 1279-1283, inclusive. In the case now before us an ex-parte decree was obtained for the rents of 1285, 1286, 1287 and 1288. Against that decree no appeal was preferred, and the time for preferring an appeal has now expired. Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the Court of First Instance had any jurisdiction to refuse to execute the decree. There is no express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for such a case. But it has been contended that there are sections in the Code which appear t...
Nuddyarchand Shaha and ors. Vs. Meajan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal820
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Who, after stating the facts, continued.--It has been contended on appeal that the Subordinate Judge was wrong; and that as it has been found that the plaintiff had been in possession of the land for upwards of 12 years, paying no rent for it, and as the land did not form part of his taluq, he must be considered as having held it adversely to his landlord; and as he has held it in this way for more than 12 years, he has acquired a title to it by limitation.2. This case, therefore, directly raises the question, what the law of this country is with regard to encroachments made by a tenant upon his landlord's property.3. There is no doubt whatever that by the English law, an encroachment made by a tenant upon land adjoining to, or even in the neighbourhood of, his holding, is presumed, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, to be made for the benefit of the landlord. See the recent cases of the Earl of Lisburne v. Davies L.R. 1 C.P. 259 and Whitmore v. Hu...
Ram Charan Buhardar and ors. Vs. ReazuddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal856
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for possession of certain lands on the allegation that they appertained to a certain taluq, which he had purchased at an auction sale in execution. The defence raised several pleas, one of which was that the suit was barred by res judicata. The first Court overruled this plea and decided the case upon its merits. The lower Appellate Court, however, has held that the plea of res judicata is fatal, and has dismissed the suit on that ground.2. The plaintiff appeals to this Court.3. Now, what appears to have taken place in the former suit is this. In 1878 the present plaintiff framed his plaint on somewhat similar allegations to those in the present case; and the issues framed in that suit related--(1) to the extent of the rights which the plaintiff had actually acquired by his purchase; and (2) to the correctness of the description of the lands sought to be recovered. As to the first point, the Munsif decided that the plaintiff had pur...
Saroda Pershad Ganguli and anr. Vs. Pahali Mahanti and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal913
Wilson, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is, whether in Section 32 of Act X of 1859, where it is said, 'the suit shall be instituted within three months from the end of the Bengal year or of the month of Jeyt of the Fusli or Willayutee year on account of which such enhanced rent is claimed,' the word 'months' means months of the English calendar, or in Orissa months of the Willayutee year.2. It has been held by this Court that in the corresponding section, Section 29 of the Bengal Act VIII of 1869, English calendar months are meant. See Mahomed Elahee Btiksh v. Brojo Kishore Sen I.L.R. 4 Cal. 497 and the cases there cited. The construction of that Act, however, is governed by the Bengal General Clauses Act, Bengal Act V of 1867. The Act now in question is unaffected either by that Act or by the similar Act of the Governor-General in Council, I of 1868. But the rule we have to construe is one of limitation; and in Limitation Acts the periods of limitation are reckoned according t...
Gossami Sri Sri Gridhariji Maharaj Tickait Vs. Purushotum Gossami and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal814
1. We think that Section 575 of the Civil Procedure Code does not take away the right of appeal which is given by Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. We agree in the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Appaji Bhivrav v. Shivlal Khubchand I.L.R. 3 Bom. 204 that the effect of Section 575 of the Code is to supersede the provision in Clause 36 of the Letters Patent; that in the event of any disagreement between two Judges of a Division Bench, the judgment of the senior Judge shall prevail; but (sic), and still that notwithstanding that section, Clause 15 of the Letters Patent remains in full force.3. One very cogent reason, which has induced us to take this view, and which seems almost conclusive upon the point is, that if the appeal under Clause 15 of the Charter were taken away, a judgment in this Court of a Judge in a Division Bench, who agreed with the Court below upon a question of fact, would be absolutely final. However important the case might be, no appeal would lie ...
Ambica Pershad Singh and ors. Vs. Surdhari Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal851
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think it clear that in this case the application made by the decree-holder on the 1st of May 1880 for the issue of a sale proclamation was an application 'to take some step in aid of execution' within the meaning of Clause 4 of Article 179 of the Limitation Act of 1877.2. The language of that clause is somewhat more comprehensive than that of Clause 4 of Article 167 of the Limitation Act of 1871, but under either Act I should consider that the application, which is the subject of the present reference, was not barred by time.3. I think it very probable that the construction which was put upon the latter clause in the case of Joobraj Singh v. Buhooria Alumbasee Koer 7 C.L.J. 424 may have been induced by the language of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Chunder Coomar Roy v. Bhogobutty Prosonno Roy I.L.R. 3 Cal. 235 : 1 C.L.R. 23.4. It was said, I observe, in that judgment that the words 'applying to enforce the decree' in Article 167 of the Limitation Act of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›