Kolkata Court July 1886 Judgments
Sew Bux Bogla Vs. Shib Chunder Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal225
Trevelyan, J.1. This application raises a question of some importance. It is an application to the Court under the revision section (Section 622) of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside an order made by the Small Cause Court. I have taken some time to consider this case, not because I have entertained any doubt, but because I thought it desirable to hesitate before interfering with the considered judgment of two able and experienced Judges of the Small Cause Court. I have no doubt whatever that the Judges of the Small Cause Court were wrong.2. The only question is whether, considering a recent ruling of the Privy Council, and the interpretation which has been given to that ruling by a Full Bench of the High Court of the North-Western Provinces, I have power to interfere. The facts are as follows: On the 23rd of June 1885 Sew Bux Bogla obtained a decree in the Calcutta Small Cause Court against Shib Chunder Sen and Hurry Narain Sen for Es 1,397-11 to be paid by instalments of Rs. 50 a ...
Tag this Judgment!Kala Chara Tea Co. Ld. Vs. Sukul Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal280
Wilson and Porter, JJ.1. This is a suit brought to recover certain lands which, the plaintiffs say, were included in the pottah or pottahs under which they held their property from the Government, and from which they say they have been dispossessed by the defendants.2. A number of issues were raised, and the Munsif disposed of those issues in such a manner as to entitle the plaintiffs to the decree they asked for.3. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar has reversed that decision on one ground. He says, with reference to a survey which had been made apparently about the year 1881 or just previously, 'the laying of the boundary mehals during the recent settlement was not appealed apparently either under Section 59 or Section 60 of Bengal Act V of 1875, and therefore under Section 62 of the same Act the present suit is barred. It has been argued that the dispute has been going on for a long time, and that legal proceedings were entered into regarding the matter previous to the lay...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Mohun Shaha Vs. Srinibas Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal331
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is a person who, in the month of Srabtn 1289 (July 1882), purchased a putni by private sale. At the time of his purchase, the land, which was the subject of the putni, was in the possession of the defendant as durputnidar, he having bought it at an auction sale for arrears of rent due upon the tenure, some six months previously, and at the time of these purchases there was due to the zamindar, or the superior landlord of the whole, three years' rent at the rate of Rs. 43 a year, that rent having become due before either the plaintiff or the defendant had got on to the land.2. By the terms of the durputni under which the former durputnidar, whose tenure has now passed to the defendant, held the property, he was to pay to the putnidar, who, since the purchase, is represented by the plaintiff, the sum of Rs. 73 annually; Rs. 43 was to be paid to the zamindar in discharge of the putni rent; and the remaining Rs. 30 to his (the defendant'...
Tag this Judgment!Hemangini Dassi Vs. Kedar Nath Coondoo Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal336
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Ghose, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit brought by Sreemutty Hemangini Dassi, widow of the late Tara Churn Coondoo, for maintenance. The said Tara Churn Coondoo had two wives--Prosunnomoyi and Hemangini, the plaintiff. Prosunnomoyi predeceased Tara Churn, and the latter died on the 8th Bysaek 1272 (19th April 1865) having executed a will on the 5th Bysaek 1272, and leaving Hurrish Chunder Coondoo, the defendant No. 2, his son by Hemangini, and two other sons, Kedar Nath, the defendant No. 1, and Annoda Pershad. The latter died in June 1882, leaving a will by which Kedar Nath, his whole brother, was appointed executor of his estate. So that Kedar Nath is the defendant in this suit, not only on his own behalf, but also as representing the estate left by Annoda Pershad.2. The present suit, as already mentioned, is by Hemangini Dassi, the mother of Hurrish Chunder, the defendant No. 2, for maintenance; and it is a suit not only against her own son but ...
Tag this Judgment!Golam Rahman Vs. Fatima Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal232
Wilson and Porter, JJ.1. It appears to us that the objection which has been taken to this appeal must prevail.2. If this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, it must be either by reason of the Burma Courts Act, or by reason of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, or both.3. This, is an appeal from a decision of the Recorder of Rangoon. And the only section in the Burma Courts Act which could be pointed to as giving an appeal to this Court is Section 49. That section says, first, that 'there shall be no appeal from the decree or order of the Recorder passed in any original suit or proceeding where the amount or value of the subject-matter does not exceed three thousand rupees.' That excludes appeals altogether in cases under the sum mentioned. The section then goes on to say, that 'where the amount or value of the suit or proceeding in the Recorder's Court exceeds three thousand rupees and is less than, ten thousand rupees, an appeal shall lie to the High Court.' Thes...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Chatterji Vs. Gourmoni Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal326
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit which has been brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover a sum of Rs. 2,750 and interest, and various other sums. The lower Court has dismissed the suit altogether, and so the matter comes before us now in appeal.2. The facts of the case are that, some time ago, the present defendant brought a suit against the present plaintiff and two other persons, to recover a certain sum of money. It is immaterial to enquire what that suit was about. The Court of First Instance dismissed that suit with costs, which amounted to Rs. 300 and odd. The plaintiff in that suit appealed from that decision, and while the appeal was pending the defendants in that suit sued out execution of their decree for costs and in the execution proceedings the house, in which the then plaintiff was living, was sold and purchased by the present plaintiff, one of the defendants in that suit, for Rs. 2,750. Out of that amount the costs, on account of which the execut...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Ojha and anr. Vs. Ram Logan Ojha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal9
1. This is a suit brought substantially to set aside a sale of an undivided share in Mouzah Ismailpore, forming a part of a mehal which also includes other mouzahs. The plaintiff being one of the sharers in the mehal, his interests were sold for arrears of road cess; and he sues the purchaser and the other persons interested in the transaction.2. The lower Court has given a decree in the plaintiff's favour.3. It is said, first, that such a suit will not, in any case, lie in a Civil Court; and the ground for that contention is that, in Bengal Act VII of 1880, Section 19, it is said that a certificate may be enforced and executed by all or any of the ways and means mentioned and provided in the Code of Civil Procedure for the enforcement and execution of decrees for money; and that all the practice and procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of sales in execution of decrees, and in various other matters enumerated, shall apply to every execution issued to enforce suc...
Tag this Judgment!Aga Mahomed Hamadani Vs. Cohen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal221
Wilson and Porter, JJ.1. We think that this matter is really free from doubt. The question is whether the present appeal, which is an appeal from a decision of the Recorder of Rangoon, was filed within time or out of time; and that depends upon whether it is, or is not, governed by Article 156 in the second schedule of the Limitation Act. That article says that an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure to a High Court, except in certain cases mentioned, must be brought within ninety days from the date of the decree of order appealed against.2. What we have to decide is whether an appeal from the Recorder's Court of Rangoon to this Court is an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The Acts relating to the matter are these: First, the Burma Courts Act (XVII of 1875). That Act provides for the organisation and the jurisdiction of the various Courts therein mentioned. Chapter IV deals with the Court of the Recorder of Rangoon, and Section 49 in that chapter says: 'There shall be no...
Tag this Judgment!Poonit Singh Vs. Madho Bhot and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal270
Mitter and Grant, JJ.1. Two points of law have been argued before us: first, that the Magistrate was not authorised by law to allow this prosecution to be instituted on the complaint of a private individual. In support of this contention the learned Counsel who appeared for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Allahabad High Court- Empress of India v. Radha Kishhn I.L.R. 5 All. 36. With due deference to the learned Judge who decided that case, we are unable to take the view which has been taken in it. The language of Section 195 clearly shows that it would be quite sufficient if either the sanction of the public servant mentioned therein were given, or a complaint is directly made by him. That being so, we are unable to agree in the proposition of law laid down in the case cited before us. This point therefore fails, but upon the second point which has been taken before us, we think that the conviction and sentence in one of the two cases are bad. The accused person was charged wit...
Tag this Judgment!Oo Noung and anr. Vs. Moung Htoon Oo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal322
Mitter and Grant, JJ.1. We think that the present case is entirely governed by the judgment in Kedar Nath Dutt v. Sham Lal Khettry 11 B.L.R. 405. As in that case, so in this, the question is, whether the memorandum or the letter of deposit referred to in the questions submitted to us was itself a contract of mortgage, or simply evidence of a fact from which the mortgage could be inferred. We think for the reasons given in Kedar Nath Butt's case that the letter of deposit, as it is called in the questions submitted to us, was not a contract of mortgage between the parties. The equitable mortgage was effected by the deposit of the title-deeds by the defendant No. 1 before the writing of that letter of deposit took place. In that letter it is simply recited that an equitable mortgage had been effected by the deposit of title-deeds.2. Not only is the present case supported by the judgment of the Appellate Court, in the case of Kedar Nath Dutt, but it may also be supported by the reasons gi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »