Kolkata Court January 1887 Judgments
C.T. Davis and ors. Vs. Drobomoyi Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal323
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Furreedpore in favour of the plaintiffs in a suit brought by Mr. C.T. Davis as receiver to the estate of the late Raj Chunder Dass in the names of himself and the proprietors of the estate against the appellants Permanund Sen and others to set aside a permanent settlement granted to them by Rashmoni Dasi, the widow of the said Raj Chunder Das, in respect of a chur named Gobra, which was an accretion to the mouzah of that name. Rashmoni granted the settlement of this chur in perpetuity to the defendants in the year 1260, the chur being then, as it is stated, mainly covered with jungle; the lessees were to hold it rent-free for the first three years, and subsequently at a progressive jumma until the year 1267, from which year they were to hold it in perpetuity at 10 annas per bigha. Rashmoni Dasi died in 1861, and after her death the estate was held during their lifetime by two of her daughters, Padmamoni...
Tag this Judgment!Koilash Chunder Roy and anr. Vs. Jodu Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal380
1. Section 148 (h) declares that, 'notwithstanding anything contained in Section 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure an application for execution of a decree for arrears obtained by a landlord shall not be made by an assignee of the decree unless the landlord's interest in the land has become, and is vested in him.' In this case it is admitted that the exception stated does not exist. We have, therefore, to consider, first, whether the assignment of the rights of Srish Chunder, which was admitted by the Court of execution under Section 232 before the Bengal Tenancy Act became law, entitles Appeal from Order, No. 873 of 1886, against the order of J. Crawfurd, Esq., District Judge of Nuddea, dated the 14th of August 1886, reversing the order of Baboo Nuffer Chunder Bhutto, Subordinate Judge of that district, dated the 7th of August l886. the assignee to proceed to execution in respect of the rights of the assignor; next, whether the assignment of the rights of Joykali, said to have been m...
Tag this Judgment!Mokshoda Debi Vs. Prem Chand Nuskur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal201
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiff states that she is one of three land-lords of the defendants, tenants, and she sues for the entire rent due from the tenants, making her co-sharers defendants also because they refused to join in the suit.2. The Munsiff dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred under Section 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, but on appeal the District Judge has set aside that decision, on the ground that Section 188 does not apply.3. In our opinion the view taken by the District Judge is correct. Section 188 applies only to anything which the landlord is, under the Bengal Tenancy Act, required or authorised to do. We can find nothing in the Act which authoresses a landlord to bring a suit against a tenant for recovery of arrears of rent. The terms of the section should, in our opinion, be strictly construed, for we cannot assume that the Legislature intended to alter the practice of our Courts as established by numerous decisions for years, past ...
Tag this Judgment!Anund Chunder Sen Mozumdar Vs. Doya Chand Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal382
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. The plaintiff sues to recover khas possession of certain lands now in the occupation of defendant No. 1. He states that the other defendants were his tenants, and that defendant No. 1 has purchased in execution of a decree the rights of those tenants which were not transferable. The sole question on which the case was tried by both the lower Courts and which is now argued before us is on whom the onus, under such circumstances, would lie, whether it is for the defendant to prove that he acquired the right to hold the land inasmuch as the tenure was a transferable tenure, or whether the plaintiff is not bound to start his case by showing that the tenancy of defendants 2, 3 and 4 was not transferable, and that consequently he had a right to re-enter on their relinquishing the land in favour of defendant No. 1. In the course of the argument some cases have bean cited from the Weekly Reporter, but it is impossible for us to apply the law laid down in those cases...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›