Kolkata Court November 1887 Judgments
Adarmoni Dasi and anr. Vs. Umesh Chunder Mundul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal221
O'Kinbaly, J.1. This is a suit for rent on a registered contract, and the point for our consideration is whether the limitation is three years under Article 110 of the second schedule attached to Act XV of 1877, or whether it falls under Article 116, compensation for the breach of a contract in writing registered. In the former case the period of limitation would be three years; in the latter case, six years. It has been held in this Court that a suit for a sum certain, that is, a suit as it were on a promise to pay, falls within Article 116, and that view has bean followed by the Bombay High Court, and in Madras it has been specifically determined chat a suit for rent on a registered document falls within Article 116. Looking, therefore, at the rulings of the different Courts, it seems now difficult to come to any other conclusion than that arrived at by the Judge below. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Ghose, J.2. I concur in dismissing this appeal. I desire only to say that I have...
Tag this Judgment!Fotick Chunder Dey Sircar Vs. E.G. Foley and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal492
Norris, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this ease is whether, since the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, a landlord who obtains a decree for rent is entitled, if he pleases, in the first instance, to attach the moveable property, and, if he pleases, the person of his judgment-debtor, or whether he is obliged, in the first instance, to. endeavour to execute his decree by putting up for sale the tenure, the rent in respect of which is in arrear, and for which he has obtained a decree.2. The District Judge has held that the landlord is not entitled, in the first instance, to attach the moveable property, and, if ha so pleases, the person of the defaulting tenant.3. In support of this view, the District Judge has relied upon the case of Lalit Mohun Roy v. Binodai Dabee 14 C 14. With reference to that case, which was decided by Mr. Justice Ghose and myself, two observations are to be made. First, it was a decision under the old rent Act (Act VIII of 1869), and we ...
Tag this Judgment!Koylash Chandra Shaha and anr. Vs. C. Christophoridi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal171
1. We are of opinion that the surety, Mr. Kemp, was released from his. Obligation under the bond executed by him when the judgment-debtor filed his application under Section 344 to be declared an insolvent....
Tag this Judgment!Shurnomoyi (or Shurnomoyi Dasi) Vs. Nund Kumar Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal162
Norris, J.1. The only point raised in this appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the document referred to in the judgments of the two lower Courts is an acknowledgment of a debt within the meaning of Article 1, schedule I of the Stamp Act, and being such a document it should have been stamped with a one-anna stamp; and that, requiring a one-anna stamp, under Section 31 of the Stamp Act, it was a document for which no penalty could be paid, and which could not be received in evidence.2. We have looked at the document ourselves, and we think that it is not an acknowledgment of a debt within the meaning of Article 1. Schedule I of the Stamp Act, and we are fortified in this opinion by a decision of Mr. Justice Prinsep and Mr. Justice O'Kinealy on a very similar point in the case of Brojo Gobind Shaha v. Goluck Chunder Shaha 9. C 127.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Hughes Vs. Delhi and London Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal35
ORDERTrevelyan, J.1. This case having coma before ma for settlement of issues, I have settled the issues, and have only now to decide two questions as to parties. The first is whether the representatives of the mortgagors are necessary parties to this said; the second is whether the plaintiff's husband is a necessary party to this suit.2. As to the first question, I think that the representatives of the mortgagors are necessary parties to the suit. The object of this suit is to determine the rights of the mortgagees inter se; but it seems to me that such rights cannot be determined without at the same time determining the liability of the mortgagors, a liability which unless the mortgagors be made parties to this suit, might have to be determined in other suits, a result which would entail an unnecessary multiplicity of actions. The mortgaged property has been sold, and the proceeds are insufficient to pay off both mortgagees. Probably the mortgagors are not very much interested in the...
Tag this Judgment!Dewanutulla Vs. Kazem Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal184
1. This was a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption under the Mahomedan law. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 appear to be joint proprietors of a certain mokurarri or permanent tenure; and the defendant No. 1 has created a sub-lease in perpetuity of his share ; and it is in respect of that sub-lease that the plaintiff now sues to enforce his right of pre-emption.2. The suit has been thrown out by the lower appellate Court on two grounds : In the first place the Subordinate Judge holds that inasmuch as the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 were only the tenants and not the actual proprietors of the land, the doctrine of pre-emption will not apply; and, secondly, that, as the defendant No. 1 did not sell his entire interest in the property out and out, but simply created a lease in perpetuity, the doctrine of pre-emption is not applicable.3. We have heard Munshi Mahomed Yusoof at great length in regard to what he considers the proper principles of Mahomedan law on this subject; but...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chunder Das Vs. Chunchun Ojha, Heir and Representative of the La ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal357
Beverley, J.1. After shortly stating the facts as above, continued: The only question before us in second appeal is whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the Regulation did not apply in this case, but that the mortgage must be foreclosed under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, which came into force on 1st July 1882.2. The material facts as regard this question are these: The deed of conditional sale was executed and the due date expired while the Begulation was still in force. Notice of foreclosure, it is alleged, was also served while the Begulation was in force, but when the year of grace expired the Begulation had been repealed.3. The Advocate-General for the appellant contends generally that the mortgagor's right to foreclosure under the provisions of the Regulation having accrued while the Regulation was still in force, that right is saved by Section 2, Clause (c) of the Transfer of Property Act; and in this particular case he relies on a decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Chunder Roy Vs. Guru Churn Kurmokar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal94
Ghose, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follow: The present defendant brought a suit in the year 1832 against one Pran Gour for the recovery of possession of certain lands. Pending the suit in the Court of first instance, the right, title and interest of Pran Gour were sold in execution of a decree passed against him, and were purchased by the present plaintiff on the 20th of June 1882. Subsequently to this, that is, on the 13th December 1882, the abovementioned suit against Pran Gour was dismissed by the Court of first instance. The present defendant thereupon appealed. The purchaser at the execution sale, namely, the present plaintiff, was not made a party to the appeal; but there is no evidence to show that the defendant knew of the plaintiff's purchase. On the 26th of September 1883 the appellate Court reversed the decree of the Court of first instance, and gave judgment in favour of the present defendant. The present suit is by the plaintiff, as auctio...
Tag this Judgment!Atal Chundal and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-1887
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.551
1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to eject the tenants from a tank forming a portion of their holding.2. Several objections have been taken to the decree of the lower Appellate Court, but it seems to us necessary to notice only one of them, because upon that one alone we think it clear that the appellant is entitled to succeed and that the suit of the plaintiff must fail.3. The suit purports to be based on a notice to quit, but all that the plaintiff alleged or attempted to prove was that he had desired the defendant, the tenant, to give up a certain tank which formed a part only of his holding. The alleged notice, therefore, had not the effect of terminating the tenancy. We understand that a notice to quit is a notice intended to terminate the tenancy, between the landlord and the tenant. The District Judge considered that although the notice related only to a portion of the holding, it was good in law so far as that portion was concerned; that it was in the option of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Empress Vs. Reolah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-01-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal887
1. This was an application made, on 7th October 1887, during the vacation, to set aside, a convication and sentence of the Deputy Magistrate of Giridhi, on the ground that be had heared and tried cross cases of rioting together,and had thereby prejucied the applicants in their defence.2. Befor bearing the application, the Court (Mr. Justice Norris and Mr. Justice Ghose), on discovering that the applicant had not, before coming up to the High Court, applied to the Sessions Judge, and bening divided in opinion as to whether the applicant was legally bound so first to apply to the Sessions Judge, directed that the application should be renewed, if neeessary, before the Criminal Bench after the re-opening of the Court after the vacation.3 On the 1st November 1887, the application was renewed before Mr. Justice Prinsep and Mr. Justic Pigot, who, after hearing Mr. Bell on behalf of the applicant, and after consultation with the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Court on the point, de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›