Kolkata Court April 1886 Judgments
Sadhusaran Singh and anr. Vs. Panchdeo Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal1
1. In appeal it is contended before us that the present suit is not barred, because the sale sought to be set aside was null and void. This contention is based upon three grounds : first, that there were no arrears due at all; secondly, that no notice was served upon the plaintiffs as is required by the provisions of Bangal Act VII of 1880; and, thirdly, that the provisions of Section 290 of the Civil Procedure Code were infringed, inasmuch as the auction-sale was held before the expiration of thirty days, calculated from the date on which the copy of the proclamation had been fixed up in the Court-house of the Collector, who in this case acted as the Judge ordering the sale.2. We are of opinion that this contention is valid, and that the Subordinate Judge was not right in dismissing the suit, upon a preliminary point, 'without taking evidence. We shall state hereafter the grounds upon which our decision is founded. But as the defendants have taken another preliminary objection in bar ...
Tag this Judgment!Goluck Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. Kali Charan De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal175
Prinsep and Grant, JJ.1. This is an application made on behalf of twenty-four persons, one of whom, Bukshi Shonar, has been convicted under Section 157 of the Indian Penal Code and the others under Section 188. As regards Bukshi Shonar, it is sufficient to state that there is evidence which has been believed by the Deputy Magistrate and by the District Magistrate in appeal, which is sufficient for his conviction. There are no grounds for interfering as a Court of Revision in respect of this person.2. It appears that in 1883 an order was passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a dispute between certain members of the Nag family and Kutubudin, in which it was decided that the former was in possession of certain lands, and it was declared that they were entitled to retain possession thereof until evicted in due course of law, all disturbance of such possession until such eviction being forbidden.3. The petitioners are in the service of Kutubudin and...
Tag this Judgment!Naun Singh Vs. Rash Behari Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal255
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. In this second appeal it has been urged that the defendants-respondents are not entitled to re-open the question of jurisdiction in the Appellate Court, they having not preferred any appeal against the Munsif's decision upon this point. We are of opinion that this contention is not valid. The defendants-respondents were entitled to answer the plaintiff's appeal upon the ground that the Munsif had no, jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We think, therefore, that there is no force in this contention.2. The second ground that has been urged before us is that the finding of the Subordinate Judge, that the value of the property in dispute is more than Rs. 1,000, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It has been contended that the value of the property in dispute in this case is not necessarily the value of the subject-matter in dispute. The plaintiff offered to pay Rs. 700, the consideration money sta...
Tag this Judgment!Mazhar HossaIn and ors. Vs. Misri Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal262
Mitter and Agnew, JJ.1. It has been contended before us that the mortgage upon which the plaintiff relies is not valid under the Transfer of Property Act. We are of opinion that the Transfer of Property Act does not deal with a mortgage of this kind. Future indigo crops that may be grown upon a certain plot of land belonging to the mortgagor were mortgaged. A mortgage of this kind does not come within the purview of the Transfer of Property Act. Neither can it be called a pledge of specific moveable property. It is a mortgage of moveable property that may come into existence in future. Such a transaction as this is neither governed by the Transfer of Property Act nor by the Contract Act. The transaction in question is in the nature of an agreement to mortgage 'moveable property that may come into existence in future. We see no reason to hold that it is not valid. It has been recognized in Courts of justice in this country; see Lala Tilockdhari Lal v. Furlong 2 B.L.R. A.C. 230.We dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairab Chundra Chowdri Vs. Alek Jan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal268
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge was not right in holding that the instrument upon which this suit was brought was not properly stamped. The amount secured by the instrument is the value of the paddy agreed to be made over to the creditor, as fixed by the instrument itself. If there be a rise in the price of the paddy at the time of the institution of the suit, it would not make the instrument an instrument which is not sufficiently stamped under the Act. If the view of the Subordinate Judge were correct, it would be impossible for the parties to the document to fix the value or the amount to be secured for the purpose of determining what stamp duty should be paid.2. The record will be sent back....
Tag this Judgment!Carrison Vs. Rodrigues and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal115
Trevelyan, J.1. This is an application to set aside the decree made by consent on 30th March 1886. The facts on which I must act are contained in an affidavit made by the plaintiff and also by Mrs. Westcott, her daughter. I am bound to say at the outset that it is somewhat extraordinary, considering the terms of the affidavit, that the attorney on the record, who was perfectly cognizant of the facts alleged, did not support it. But I do not think that this circumstance-although one would have expected the attorney to come to the assistance of the Court-would justify me in refusing to act. The case came oil for hearing for the second time on the 30th March 1886. On a previous occasion I had decided a particular issue, and held that the plaintiff under her husband's will was entitled to the property for life.2. When the case was called on, counsel for the defendant, seeing that a continuance of the litigation would involve the disappearance of the property in suit, suggested that I might...
Tag this Judgment!The Shamnugger Jute Factory Co., Ld. and anr. Vs. Ram NaraIn Chatterje ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal189
1. The next question argued was whether the taking of these putni leases was ultra vires on the part of the plaintiff-Company. The District Judge has answered this question in the affirmative (here followed certain passages from the judgment of the District Judge). The learned District Judge has not found in express terms for what purpose the pottas were taken; but we think what he intended to find appears with sufficient clearness If we rightly understand the District Judge, what he finds is that the Company, being largely dependent for the work of its mill upon the supply of labour drawn from the other side of the river and from the neighbourhood of the lands in question, took these putnis in order to prevent if they could, the erection of a rival mill upon these lands, which would naturally cut off their labour-supply. We have to say whether this transaction was ultra vires on the part of the Company (here followed the objects for which the Company was formed as set out in the Memor...
Tag this Judgment!Arjan Bibi Vs. Asgar Ali Chowdhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal200
Mitter, J.1. The question for decision in this case is, whether the following stipulation in the bond upon which this suit was brought was a stipulation for the payment of interest or a stipulation which falls under Section 74 of the Contract Act, fixing a particular sum as the amount to be paid in case of a breach.2. The stipulation is, 'I cannot pay Rs. 1,000 now, so I will pay it within two months and fifteen days. If I do not pay it within that period, I will pay the amount with interest from the date of the bond at the rate of 2 annas per rupee per month.'3. It seems to us that this stipulation does not fall under Section 74 of the Contract Act. No sum is named here as the amount to be paid by the defendant in case of a breach. It simply stipulates that if the money is not paid within two months and fifteen days the borrower agrees to pay the amount borrowed with interest at the rate of 2 annas per rupee per month. It therefore falls within Section 2 of Act XXVIII of 1855.4. The d...
Tag this Judgment!Ashanullah Khan Bahadur Vs. Trilochan Bagchi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal197
Mitter, J.1. It has been contended before us that the lower Appellate Court ought to have presumed under Clause (e), Section 114 of the Evidence Act, that the Collector did issue a notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 52.2. We are of opinion that Clause (e) of Section 114 is not applicable to the present case, and that the lower Appellate Court was right in not making any presumption in favour of the publication of the notice prescribed in Section 52.3. Reading Sections 52 and 53 together, it appears to us that the object of the notice prescribed by Section 52 is to inform the tenure-holder, who would be affected by the valuation-roll, of the amount assessed, so that he might come in and object, and have it altered if there be reasonable grounds for such alteration. This appears to be quite clear from Section 53. That being so, it seems to us that the publication of the notice was a condition precedent to the tenure-holder being bound by the valuation-roll prepared by th...
Tag this Judgment!Loke Nath Surma and ors. Vs. Keshab Ram Doss and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal147
McDonell and Beverley, JJ.1. The circumstances of this case are fully net out in the decision of the lower Appellate Court.2. It is contended in second appeal that the District Judge is wrong in law :(1) in dismissing the suit on the ground that different causes of action against different defendants separately have been joined together; and (2) in holding that a suit for a mere declaration of title without further relief is not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act.3. In deciding the first point, the Judge has relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Narsing Das v. Mdhgal Dabi I.L.R. 5 All. 163 in which it was held that, where several distinct causes of action are alleged against distinct acts of defendants who are not jointly liable in respect of each and all of such causes of action, a suit against all the defendants jointly is bad in law.4. In the present case, however, it is contended that the cause of action alleged against...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »