Kolkata Court March 1885 Judgments
Padmanund Singh and anr. Vs. Kartick Nath Pandy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal496
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. These are appeals against an order of the lower Court, appointing a receiver to take charge of the property held by the defendants on a lease, in suits brought against them under Section 52 of the Rent Law for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that Section 503 of the Civil Procedure Code, under which the order appealed against has been made, is not applicable to these suits. He says that the suits are really for arrears of rent only, and the ejectment of the defendants is merely incidental upon the nonpayment of the amount of the decree, whatever it may be, within fifteen days from the date of the decree. He also contends that Section 503 of the Code is not applicable at all to suits brought under the Rent Act. He points out that before the passing of Act X of 1859, the landlord himself had the power under the old Regulations to appoint private receivers called sazawals, but that that power was tak...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamaya Goopta and ors. Vs. Nilmadhab Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal533
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This was a suit by the plaintiff, who was the defendant's landlord, for a double purpose.2. He first claimed rent from the defendant at the rate which the defendant and his father had been paying up to the close of the year 1287. He then claimed enhanced rent for the first three months of 1288; but if the Court should be of opinion that he was not entitled to this enhanced rent, he claimed to eject the defendant as from the close of the year 1287.3. This latter claim was founded upon a notice to quit, which the plaintiff had served upon the defendant of a somewhat ambiguous character.4. The notice was given about three months before the close of the year 1287; it stated that the defendant, who had succeeded his father in the tenancy, had no interest (which meant, we presume, no permanent interest) in the tenure; and it required the defendant to quit the land at the end of the year 1287; or, if he did not quit the land, to hold it at an enhanced jumma of Rs. 43.5. ...
Tag this Judgment!J.D. Bennett Vs. A.C.N. Bennett
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal354
Norris, J.1. I have no power to make an order for alimony pendente lite. The suit between the petitioner and the respondent came to an end when the decree nisi was made, and I have, therefore, no power to order alimony pendente lite. The respondent will be entitled to apply, when the decree is to be made absolute, for permanent alimony. Mr. Hill, on behalf of the petitioner, says that the petitioner is willing to make the respondent an allowance until an application can be made for permanent alimony. The payment of that allowance, Mr. Hill says, will be dependent on respondent leading a chaste life. At present I can make no order; with reference to Mr. Hill's statement that the petitioner is willing to make an allowance to the respondent, I think that Rs. 60 a month would be a fair and reasonable sum to be paid to her till such time as she can make an application for permanent alimony....
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Mahmood Vs. Safar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal407
Richard Garth, C.J. (McDonell, J., concurring)1. In this suit the plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant under a kabuliat at a jumma of Rs. 11-1-6.2. The defendant's case, on the other hand, was that the jumma was only Rs. 5-6.3. The issue fixed by the Munsiff was, 'what is the amount of the jumma held by the defendant? '4. The Munsiff found that the kabuliat was not proved. He also found that the plaintiff had not proved the jumma rate, which he claimed; but as the defendant admitted the amount to be Rs. 5-6, he gave the plaintiff a decree for that sum.5. The case was then appealed to the Subordinate Judge, and upon going into the evidence he found that the proper amount of the jumma was Rs. 10-12-1. In arriving at that conclusion, he appears to have taken into consideration three items of evidence:First, he says that certain collection papers for the period prior to 1288 had been filed; that it did not appear that the first Court rejected these papers as being false, and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Trailokia Nath Nundi Vs. Shurno Chungoni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal539
Richard Garth, C.J. (McDonell, J., concurring)1. In this case the plaintiff claims to eject the defendant from a small property, upon the ground that she is a tenant-at-will, and he has given her a notice to quit.2. The defendant's answer is, that she and her father before her have been in possession of this property, which is homestead land, for about sixty years, under a pottah which was granted to her father by the person who is admitted to have been the proprietor at that time.3. The plaintiff tried to make out that the defendant held under some agreement with a person under whom he claims; but that fact was negatived by the Court below.4. The pottah said to have been granted to the defendant's father was produced in the Court below by the defendant; and the Subordinate Judge considers it to be proved, inasmuch as he finds that the defendant has had it in her custody since her father's death, and that under the circumstances this was the proper custody.5. That decision of the Subor...
Tag this Judgment!Brinda ChowdhraIn Vs. Radhica Chowdhrain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal492
Pigot, J.1. This was an application for revocation of probate of an alleged will of the deceased husband of the applicant. The deceased left two sons.2. The application was made on three grounds: (1) that the applicant was not cited and had no notice of the proceedings; (2) that the will was a forgery; (3) that the executrix to whom the grant had been made was (as we understand by reason of her great age) imbecile.3. The District Judge refused the application first, he disbelieved that the applicant had had no notice on the ground that the proceedings taken when probate was granted had lasted some time before the Judge, and must have been known to the applicant; that she had by her conduct ratified the proceedings, as she did, after the grant of probate, join the executrix in an application to the Court of Wards to take over charge of the estate. He further intimated his opinion that her interest (and therefore her right to intervene) was doubtful as her deceased husband left two sons....
Tag this Judgment!Nundololl Mookerjee Vs. Chunder Kant Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal356
Wilson, J.1. Mr. Justice Wilson considered that the document purported rather to be a recommendation than an award; and refused to make a decree in accordance therewith on the ground that the document was no award, decided nothing, and was too obscure to be enforced....
Tag this Judgment!Netai Luskar Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal410
Field, J.1. This case has been referred to us under the provisions of Section 374 for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs.2. The accused is said to have pleaded guilty, and he has been sentenced (not convicted) by the Judge on that plea. There is no finding on the record.3. The accused has also appealed to this Court.4. In the Sessions Court the accused made the following statement as recorded by the Sessions Judge: 'I did kill my wife. I did not kill her willingly. Finding her in the act of adultery with another person, and being wholly unable to restrain myself, I killed her. I intended to kill her; my caste was gone; I resolved to kill her and then commit suicide. I detected her in adultery on Friday. I did not kill her then. On Saturday, I took her into Madun Roy's garden and there killed her. On Friday, after seeing the adultery, I was in fever and did not eat. I vowed that I would not eat until I had ki...
Tag this Judgment!Pramatha Bhusana Deb Roy Vs. Doorga Churn Bhattacharji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal413
Field, J. (Beverley, J., concurring)1. In this case a rule was granted in order to have a question decided, which has arisen upon the construction of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The rule is in the following language: 'Let a rule issue on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the 'Deputy Magistrate, so far as regards the land other than the khamar land,' should not be set aside, on the ground that it is bad in law, because it 'concerns merely the right to collect rents from tenants which is not 'tangible immoveable property' within the meaning of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal 'Procedure.' Under the Code which was in force before Act X of 1882 was passed, there can be no doubt that, according to the decisions of this Court, the right to collect rents from ryots did come within the purview of the corresponding Section (530) of the former Code. This was decided in several cases, to two of which we may refer, Sutherland v. Crowdy 18 W.R. Cr. 11 : 9 B.L.R...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Kissen Tagore Vs. Guru Churn Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal402
Pigot and O'Kinealy, JJ.1. After setting out the facts, found that the defendant was holding certain lands in excess of the quantity leased, and that the plaintiff was entitled to obtain possession of such lands, and gave him a decree against Guru Churn Chuckerbutty, but dismissed the suit as against the minors, inasmuch as the suit had not been properly framed as against them. The portion of the Court's judgment relating to the frame of the suit was as follows:Another question still remains for our decision, namely, whether the plaintiff has in this case properly sued the minor sons of Chandra Kanta Chuckerbutty. They are described in the plaint in the following words: 'No. 2, Sharoda Sunderi Debya, widow of Chundra Kant Chuckerbutty, 'deceased, mother and guardian of Probol Chunder Chuckerbutty, Aukhil 'Chunder Chuckerbutty, Ananto Coomar Chuckerbutty, and Nishi Kanta 'Chuckerbutty, minors, inhabitants of Rudrakar, pergunnah Idilpore, station 'Palung, zillah Furridpore.2. In the case...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »