Kolkata Court June 1885 Judgments
Mahomed Zamir Vs. Abdul Hakim and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal67
Wilson and Beverley, JJ.1. This was a suit to set aside a sale under Regulation VIII of 1819, the plaintiff being the proprietor of the tenure sold, and the principal defendant the purchaser at the sale.2. The first issue raised was, 'whether the sale notification was duly published as required by Regulation VIII of 1819.'3. Regulation VIII of 1819 lays down a certain procedure with regard to the service of notice: First, that a notice is to be stuck up at the Collector's kachari; secondly, that a similar notice is to be stuck up at the Sudder kachari of the zamindar; and, thirdly, that a copy or extract of so much of the notice as affects a particular defaulter is to be similarly published at the kachari of the defaulter, or at the principal town or village upon the land of the defaulter.4. The Regulation further provides with regard to the service at the kachari of the defaulter, that the evidence of that fact must be preserved in the way prescribed. In the case of The Maharajah of B...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhal Das Mukherji Vs. Radha Gobind Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal82
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this case is the putnidar of a taluk called Nundipur, from which he seeks to eject the defendant. It appears that the estate formerly belonged to one Ramlochun Ghose, who, in 1203 (1796), sold it by a kobala to one Komola Kant Koer. Komola Kant Koer was succeeded by Baidya Nath Koer, whose name was recorded as proprietor. The property remained in the possession of the Koers up to the year 1270 (1863), when it was sold for arrears of revenue, and purchased by one Sham Lal Ghose, and the Koers were ousted. The defendant was then a minor. His guardian Nobin Chunder Koer subsequently brought a suit to recover possession of the property against Shama Sundari Dasi, the guardian of Onath Bundhu Ghose, the heir of Sham Lal Ghose. This suit was referred to arbitration, and the arbitrators by their award found that six bighas of lakheraj land were excluded from the plaintiff's claim; but that the rest of the lakheraj land, including all the lands in di...
Tag this Judgment!Jhabar Mahomed Vs. Modan Sonahar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal671
Richard Garth, C.J. and Ghose, J.1. In our opinion the instalment bond, upon which this suit is brought, is not 'an agreement to give time for the satisfaction of a judgment-debt,' within the meaning of Section 257a of the Code.2. We agree with the Allahabad High Court, that the provisions of that section are only intended to prevent any binding agreements between judgment-debtors and judgment-creditors for extending the time for enforcing decrees by execution without consideration, and without the sanction of the Court.3. Those provisions are not intended to prevent the parties from entering into a fresh contract for the payment of the judgment debt by instalments or in any other way; and any such fresh contract of course could only be enforced by a fresh suit.4. We cannot agree with the view which the Bombay High Court has taken of this question, and we think that the law as laid down by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, viz.; Gumani Dad v. Prankishori Dasi 5 B.L.R. 223 virt...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Pershad Singh and anr. Minor Represented by their Mother, Sunderb ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal733
Prinsep, J.1. This suit has been brought by two minors represented by their mother, and by the mother herself, against their father, and one who has obtained a decree against him, to obtain the exemption of their shares in certain ancestral property from sale in execution of that decree. The suit has been dismissed by the Court of First Instance, and the plaintiffs are the appellants.2. An objection has been taken before us for the first time that, as the person appointed to be guardian of the minors for the purposes of this suit is their mother, a married woman, they are not properly represented, and the proceedings are bad ab initio.3. The terms of Section 457 of the Code of Civil Procedure are clear in declaring that 'no married woman can be so appointed.'4. It might, therefore, happen that if the minors were unsuccessful in the present litigation, when they come of age they would claim the right to sue again, on the ground that they were not bound by any of these proceedings, which...
Tag this Judgment!J.A. Jackson, Manager of the Jokai Assam Tea Company Limited Vs. S. Ca ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal41
Field, J.1. We think this appeal must succeed upon a single point. The suit was brought by Mr. J.A. Jackson, as Manager of the Jokai Division of the Jokai Assam Tea Company, Limited There is no doubt that the plaintiff on the record is Mr. Jackson, who is described as the Manager of the Jokai Division of the Jokai Assam Tea Company. The plaintiff on the record is not the Jokai ASsam Tea Company; and in saying this we do not overlook paras. 2 and 7 of the plaint which speak of ' the plaintiff-company.'The law on the subject is very simple, and it is to be found in Section 435 of the Civil Procedure Code.' In miits by a corporation, or by a company authorized to sue and be sued in the name of an officer or of a trustee, the plaint may be subscribed and verified on behalf of the Corporation or Company, by any Director, Secretary, or other principal officer of the Corporation or Company, who is able to depose to the facts of the case.' Now, there is no suggestion in this case that this Com...
Tag this Judgment!Jatinga Valley Tea Company Limited Vs. Chera Tea Company Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal45
Field, J.1. We think that the Judge in the Court below was wrong in making the remand order in this case. The Munsif states in his judgment that both parties resolutely refused to have a local enquiry; and it is admitted that the correctness of this statement was not challenged, on appeal to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has remaned the case in order that there may be a local investigation. He says: 'The whole, question is one of the position and boundaries of the land sued for, and can only be settled by a local investigation.' We think that the parties were themselves the, best judges as to what evidence they desired to put before the Court, and that, when the parties 'resolutely refused' to have a local investigation; the Judge below was bound to decide the case upon the evidence put before him; and was wrong in remanding the case for a local investigation, which the parties ware not desirous to have.2. It has been contended before us; that this appeal, ought riot...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Menglas Tea Estate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal383
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this and in all other similar cases, which are referred to us by the Board of Revenue, as to the proper amount of stamp duty chargeable upon a deed of conveyance, I consider that we are bound to look at the substance of the transaction as disclosed by the whole of the deed, and not merely to the language of the operative part or parts of the instrument.2. In that view it seems to me very clear that the subject-matter of the sale in question to Mr. Paterson was not a mere transfer of the leases of the 22nd of July 1884, but the sale of a one-sixteenth share of the partnership, called the 'Menglas Tea Association,' including all of the property and effects belonging to that partnership.3. It is recited in the deed that the vendor, who is one of the members of the Association, had contracted with the purchaser for the sale to him of a one-sixteenth part or share in the Association for the sum of Rs. 10,000.4. It has been argued by Mr. Pugh, on behalf of the purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Jakhu Roy Vs. Bhalu Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal667
Prinsep and Grant, JJ.1. In execution of a decree obtained by a mortgagee, the plaintiff intervened stating that he was in possession of the mortgaged property by virtue of a registered deed of sale executed by the mortgagor, and that he was entitled to priority as against the previous unregistered mortgage held by the decree-holder. His claim has been disallowed, and accordingly the present suit has been brought.2. It cannot be disputed that at the time the plaintiff purchased from the mortgagor, he had notice of the previously existing mortgage under an unregistered deed, because some eight years previously the plaintiff unsuccessfully sued to have this very mortgage set aside on the ground that it was a forged deed. No doubt, the terms of the Registration Act declare that a duly registered deed relating to immoveable property, and not of certain excepted kinds, shall take effect as regards the property comprised therein against every unregistered document relating to the same proper...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Akund Vs. Hem Chundra Chowdhari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal115
Field, J.1. The facts of this case are stated in the judgment of the Court below. This must be treated as a suit to recover possession of land on proof of title, otherwise it would be barred by the law of one year's limitation. In order to succeed, the plaintiff must prove his title. It has been found as a fact that, when he was sent to jail, he had a right of occupancy, but it has also been found as a fact that he has neglected or omitted to pay his rent for five or six years. Section 6 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 provides as follows: 'Every ryot, who shall have cultivated or held land for a period of twelve years, shall have a right of occupancy in the land so cultivated or held by him, whether it be held under pottah or not, so long as he pays the rent payable on account of the same.' Inasmuch as the plaintiff has omitted to pay rent for five years, it is impossible to say that he had on the day he instituted this suit a title therein subsisting, that is, a right of occupancy then exi...
Tag this Judgment!Gungaram Ghose Sirdar Vs. Kalipodo Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal661
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover possession of the property in dispute under a bill of sale executed by defendant No. 6 on the 3rd Bhadro 1281. He was evicted by the defendant No. 1, who claimed a right in the property in dispute under a conditional bill of sale by the defendant No. 2 in the month of September 1865.2. It is not disputed that the property in suit became the property of one Kasamuddi by purchase on the 27th May 1865. Kasamuddi sold it to defendant No. 2 in the month of August of the same year and, a few months later, that is to say, in the month of September, defendant No. 2 executed the conditional bill of sale in favour of the defendant No. 1, the respondent before us.3. After having executed this conditional bill of sale, defendant No. 2, in the month of June 1867, sold the property in dispute to defendants Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and these defendants, in August 1874, sold it to the defendant No. 6, the immediate vendor of the plaintiff ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »