Kolkata Court February 1886 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.
Gobind Nath Shaha Chowdhuri, Trustee to the Estate of Parshadanga Chow ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal1
Prinsep and Trevelyan, JJ.1. On the first point raised in second appeal, that is regarding the nature of these suits, we agree with the District Judge. They are on behalf of the purchaser of an under-tenure under Sections 59, 60 of the Rent Act, to obtain possession of lands held by the defendant, on the ground that the holdings were incumbrances which have accrued thereon by an authorized act of a previous holder of that under-tenure. The plaintiff's ease is not, as now contended before us, that the defendants were trespassers without any title, but that the title under which they held was voidable by the auction sale, and the object of the suits is to enfore the rights obtained by that sale.2. It therefore becomes necessary to determine the next and main objection raised, that the burden of proof lies on the defendants to prove their title to remain on the lands.3. It seems to us that a purchaser of an under-tenure who seeks to enforce his rights under Section 66 of the Rent Act is b...
Dwarka Nath Rai and ors. Vs. Kali Chunder Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal75
Prinsep and Trevelyan, JJ.1. This is a suit originally brought by five persons claiming as proprietors of the land held by the defendants, to eject them on service of notice.2. In the course of the proceedings in the first Court, one of the defendants, [plaintiff's?] Saroda Sundari Gupta, obtained leave to withdraw from the appeal, [suit?] and was accordingly made a defendant by the other plaintiffs.3. The Subordinate Judge in appeal has found that, although notice was served by all the landlords, still, inasmuch as one of them was not a plaintiff in the present suit, it must fail. The authorities cited to us--Radha Proshad Wasti v. Esuf I.L.R. 7 Cal. 414 and Reasut Hossein v. Chorwar Sing I.L.R. 7 Cal. 470 do not support this view of the law. It seems rather that the plaintiffs now on the record are entitled to ask for a decree to get possession as against the defendants of their share of the estate provided that they succeed in other respects. As has been pointed out already by this ...
Ahmedullah Vs. Moshaullah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal78
Prinsep and Trevelyan, JJ.1. It is sufficient for the matter now under consideration, that, is to say, whether or not the appellant has satisfied us that he had sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the period prescribed by law, to refer only to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the 6th January 1885, admitting the appeal. That order was passed ex parte, and without notice to the respondent; and it was therefore open to reconsid9ration if the respondent after notice of the appeal thought proper to question the right of the appellant to have it admitted.2. The grounds assigned by the appellant for special indulgence under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were then stated to be that he had not sufficient funds to proceed in the regular manner within the time prescribed by law, and it is now objected that this is not a sufficient cause. We think that the objection is fatal. If such ground be accepted as sufficient cause for a special order of this descri...
Lalla Chedi Lal and ors. Vs. Ramdhuni Gope and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal57
Wilson and Norris, JJ.1. We agree with the District Judge that the appeal in this case lay to him and not to this Court, but we would guard ourselves from being understood to say that we concur in all his reasons. It appears to us that the decision of this question depends upon Section 22 of Act VI of 1871, which says: 'Appeals from the decrees and orders of Subordinate Judges and Munsifs shall, when such appeals are Allowed by law, lie to the District Judge, except where the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute exceeds five thousand rupees, in which case the appeal shall be to the High Court.'2. It is quite clear that the value of the subject-matter in dispute is the capitalized value of the excess rents, which, after the measurement applied for had been effected, the appellant before us expected that he would recover. Of this value there is no evidence on the record. That being so, under the first part of Section 22 the appeal lay to the District Judge.3. Upon the merits ...
NobIn Chandra Khela Vs. Judhistir Patra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal73
Tottenham, J.1. No appearance has been made before us on behalf of the respondent in this case. We have been obliged to hear the appeal ex parte.2. The case is one not of an uncommon character. A decree was passed providing for payment by instalments. It provided that, on failure to pay any one instalment, the debtor should become liable to have the whole decree executed at once at a particular rate of interest therein mentioned.3. This was an application made for the execution of the whole decree with interest at the rate provided for in that decree.4. The Courts below appear to have held that default was made in the very first instalment, which was to have been paid in March 1289; and they have ordered execution in respect of the subsequent instalments, which were not barred, it being admitted that the first instalment was barred.5. It is contended for the judgment-debtor, who is the appellant before us, that the application for execution was barred by limitation. It is argued that t...
Mathura Nath Kundu, on His Death His Sons Debendra Nath Kundu and ors. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal533
Field, J.1. This was a suit to recover a sum of money alleged to have been paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants in excess of the sum demandable by the latter from the former on account of road cess and public works cess. The Courts below have held that the suit is barred by the one year's rule of limitation contained in Section 27 of the old Bent Act, Bengal Act VIII of 1869. We think that in taking this view they have fallen into error. The Cess Act declares that sums due as cess shall be recoverable as rent, but there is no provision that sums over-paid as cess shall be recoverable as an excessive demand of rent, nor is there any provision, express or implied, which applies to sue h a suit the special law of limitation contained in the Rent Act. We think that the rule of limitation applicable in the present case is that contained in Article 96,: of the second schedule of the limitation Act.2. In this view the case must go back for trial upon the merits.3. We may observe that thos...
Krishna Dhone Dutt and ors. Vs. Troilokia Nath Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal539
ORDERMcDonell and Beverley, JJ.1. The circumstances under which this rule was issued were the following: On the 16th August a petition appears to have been presented to the Magistrate, alleging that a breach of the peace was imminent, in respect of a certain area of 105 bighas forming a part of a large julkur or lake, called Najainpur julkur, which the Joint Magistrate says is admittedly in the possession of certain persons who hold under the first party. In that petition it was alleged that the second party had excavated a khal or canal leading to the julkur with the object of drawing off and catching the fish of the julkur. On the 23rd August it would appear that the embankment was cut, so as to effect a junction between the khal and the julkur; and on the 24th idem the Magistrate made an order in writing, under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling upon the parties concerned to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards possession of the 105 big...
Chunder Pershad Roy and ors. Vs. Shuvadra Kumari Shaheba and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal622
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff is the unregistered proprietor of a putni tenure, and sues to set aside a sale held under Regulation VIII of 1819, in consequence of certain irregularities therein.2. The lower Courts have both found in favour of the plaintiff as regards the validity of the sale; but the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff as an unregistered putnidar is debarred from bringing this suit. As authorities for this the District Judge refers to Gossan Mangal Das v. Roy Dhunput Singh Bahadoor 25 W.R. 152 being a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, and also to a case decided by the Privy Council--Lukhi Naran Mitter v. Khettro Pal Singh Roy 13 B.L.R. 146. The last case is not in point. As regards the first case the report does not state the facts so as to enable us to judge whether it is any authority or not; the judgment does not even state whether the sale was held under the putni law.3. Under such circumstances, we do not feel bound by ...
Rup Lall Dass and anr. Vs. Debendra Kumar Mandel
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal546
Field, J.1. Who after stating the facts as above continued: Two points have been argued before us upon the appeal. The first point is concerned with the service of the prohibitory order under Section 268 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second point is concerned with an alleged payment said to have been made by Debendra Kumar Mandel in satisfaction of the two bonds.2. The Judge in the Court below has found that the prohibitory order was served, and after hearing the evidence we think that there is no ground upon which we ought to interfere with his decision upon this point. We may further observe that no question has been raised as to whether the order, required by Section 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was served. The presumption, therefore, is that this order was served; and it may be a question whether, if the order after sale required by Section 301 were served, the service of the prohibitory order, which is the form of attachment before sale required by the Code, is materi...
Upendra Nath Dhal Vs. Soudamini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal535
McDonell and Beverley, JJ.1. We think that the Sessions Judge is right. A Magistrate has no power to make an order under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal-Procedure for maintenance at a progressively increasing rate. Under that section the allowance must be ordered at a fixed monthly rate, but under Section 489 it may be altered from time to time. We accordingly set aside that part of the Deputy Magistrate's order which directs a prospective increase in the rate, and direct that the allowance be levied at the rate of Rs. 1-8 only per mensem till such time as it may be altered under Section 480....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »