Kolkata Court December 1887 Judgments
Bbojo Nath Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Birmoni Singh Monipuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-25-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal228
Norris, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover rent from the defendant in respect of the year 1291 at the rate previously paid by the defendant, and for the year 1292 at an enhanced rate after notice.2. The Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree. Against that decree the defendant appealed; and the lower Appellate Court has reversed the Munsif's decision, holding that the plaintiff's claim is barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 59 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation of 1886.3. It is admitted chat the plaintiff was duly registered under the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1880, and the question is whether, being so registered, his right has been barred by Section 59 of the Assam Regulation of 1886 to which I have referred. Section 59 says: 'No person shall be bound to pay rent to any person claiming it as proprietor, lessor, manager, or mortgagee in possession of any estate, unless the name of the claimant has been registered under this chapter.' The Regulat...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Mohun Roy Vs. Khetter Nath Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal150
1. This is a reference made by the Munsif of Culna under Section 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He desires to know what is the proper construction to be placed on a document tendered in evidence in a case tried by him. That document runs as follows: 'This document, hand-note, is executed by me for the purpose of purchasing a ghor. I take from you Rs. 7. I will pay interest on the sum at half-anna per rupee per mensem. Having received the Rs. 7 in cash, this hand-note is executed. Dated 16th Assar 1292 B.S.'2. The Munsif is of opinion that the document does not fall within the definition of a bond as given in the Stamp Act. In this opinion we concur. He also considers that it is not a promissory note, and we are of the same opinion. The document under reference is very similiar to that set out in the case of Ferrier v. Ram Kulpa Ghose 23 W.R. 403. There the note ran as follows: 'Received from Mem Saheb the sum of Co's Rs. 40, and I gave interest for one month, two rupees.' It was h...
Tag this Judgment!Panatulla Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal386
Wilson, J.1. The accused in this case was charged and convicted under Section 177 of the Penal Code. This section contains two branches. The first branch of it runs thus: 'Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.' This deals with the simple case of a person who, being bound to furnish true information to a public servant, furnishes false information to him, and, under this part of the section, the maximum punishment is six months' simple imprisonment with or without fine.2. The second branch of the section is expressed thus: 'Or if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of...
Tag this Judgment!SudduruddIn Ahmed and ors. Vs. Bani Madhub Roy Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal145
Wilson, J.1. The point which comas before us in this reference is a very short one. It is stated that the suit is a suit for rent at the rate claimed, on the ground of its having been previously paid at; that rate. It appears that, previously to this suit, the plaintiffs had brought a suit for enhancement of rent on the ground of notice, and failed in that suit, because service of notice was not proved. The question is, whether they can now recover the old rent in this suit. We have referred to an abstract of the plaint in the former suit, and we find that the precise nature of this suit was this. It was a suit claiming rent at an enhanced rate on the ground of an alleged notice of enhancement, justified, as it was said, by the circumstances of the case.2. We have to say, whether the present suit is birded by reason of the provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section says: 'Every suit shall include the whole claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Romoni Kant Roy and ors. Vs. Jianutullah Sirdar and Pir Buksh Mondul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal233
1. These oases come before us on second appeal after having been once remanded by this Court with certain directions.2. It appears that upon the first hearing the Subordinate Judge, reversing the decision of the Court of first instance, which had given the plaintiff a decree, refused to receive in evidence 21 decrees which had been considered by the Munsif. He based his refusal to receive these decrees in evidence upon the authority of a Pull Bench case, referred to by the Advocate-General Gujiu Lall v. Fatteh Lall 6 C. 171. The Subordinate Judge has now, under the directions contained in the remand order, taken these decrees into consideration.3. It is urged before us on second appeal, first, that in law the lower appellate Court had no right to take these decrees into consideration ; and, secondly, that they really afford no proof in support of the point to prove which they were tendered and received.4. 'With regard to the first point, we have to observe in the first place that we co...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Kumar Banerjee for Self and as Executor to the Estate of the ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal231
1. These are appeals against four orders of the District Judge of the 24-Perguanahs, remanding the eases to the Court of first instance to record evidence and to decide, as a fact, whether the plaintiff is entitled to collect a 10 annas' or a 16 annas' share of the rent.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that in these oases a second appeal is barred by the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the order in question having been made by the District Judge, and the amount claimed in the suit not exceeding Es. 100.3. It is contended that the order of remand has not strictly decided any question at all. But it appears to us virtually it does decide a question. The first Court had held that the question whether the plaintiffs ought to recover 16 annas of the rent had been decided in their favour by a previous decision of the Subordinate Judge. The District Judge, however, has held that that decision was set aside, by this Court, and that therefore the matter was not res...
Tag this Judgment!Baboo Raghubardyal, Minor, Represented by Bunsi Lal Vs. Saligram Singh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal224
1. The judgment of the Court (Wilson and O'Kinealy, JJ.), so far as is material for the purpose of this report, was as follows:The state of facts with which we have to deal is this. The plaintiff owns shares in two villages, Sadikpur and Dehiri; and the third defendant, Sewanund, also held a share in each of the villages. Sewanund, by a kobala. dated the 3rd March 1883, conveyed his shares in both the villages to the first defendant Saligram, and the second defendant, Ramloohun. Of these two, Saligram was previously the holder of a share in Dehiri but not in Sadikpur. Ramloohun had no share in either. The property is in Gya, where the parties reside, and they are Hindus. It is not disputed that the law of pre-emption, borrowed from the Mahomedans, is by custom in force among the Hindu inhabitants of Behar.2. The plaintiff brought this suit to enforce against the defendants his alleged right of pre-emption, and he claimed, by virtue of that right, to have the shares in the two villages ...
Tag this Judgment!Sirdhar Roy Vs. Rameswar Sing
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal166
1. Sections 61 to 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act lay down the procedure in regard to the deposit of rent by a tenant; and the question we have to determine in this case is whether, after the Court has received rent from a tenant and granted him a receipt, the zemindar is entitled to come in and ask to be heard upon the matter of the deposit, and to have the order of deposit cancelled.2. Section 61 of the Act lays down the case in which a tenant may present to the Court an application for permission to deposit his rent, as also the particulars which the petition is to contain. Section 62 provides that, if it appears to the Court that the applicant is entitled to make the deposit, it shall receive the rent and grant a receipt. It would appear upon a consideration of these two sections that, if a verified application is made to the Court, and if it contains the grounds under which an application under Section 61 is authorized to be made, and if it also contains the particulars which must be...
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Gopal Sarkar Vs. Busirunnissa Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal179
1. The facts of this case are shortly these : The plaintiff held a certain tenure under Busirunnissa Bibi, the principal defendant in this suit. Busirunnissa recovered an ex parte decree for arrears of rent against the plaintiff under Act X of 1859, and, in execution of that decree, brought the tenure to sale, and at the sale, which took place on the 20th December 1884, the tenure was purchased by one Nil Mahomed, the second defendant.2. The plaintiff has brought the present suit to set aside the above sale upon the ground that the rent decree, as also the proceedings taken by Busirunnissa in execution thereof, were all fraudulent, and that she herself purchased the property ostensibly in the name of Nil Mahomed.3. The Court of first instance was of opinion that the plaintiff had no notice of the suit in which the decree was obtained, and that the sale in execution thereof was fraudulent; and it accordingly gave the plaintiff a decree.4. On appeal, the learned Judge of the District Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Amritomoye Dasia Vs. Bhogiruth Chundra Alias Jogessur Shadhoo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal164
1. We are of opinion that a 'suit for arrears of fixed maintenance' is a 'suit relating to maintenance' specified in Clouse. 38 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, IX of 1887, and is, therefore, a suit excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »