Kolkata Court December 1887 Judgments

Uma Churn Mandal Vs. Bijari Bewah

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal174

1. We are of opinion that a suit for the rent of homestead or bustoo land is not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes under the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act IX of 1887. Looking at Sections 7 and 8 of the second schedule to the Act, we think it was the intention of the Legislature to limit the jurisdiction of Small Cause Courts with reference to claims for rent to cases in which the rent is claimed in respect of houses the property of the person seeking to recover the rent....

Rutnessur SeIn and ors. Vs. Jusoda and anr.

Court: Kolkata

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I think that this appeal must be allowed.2. This is an action to recover certain mortgage money, and the only question in the case is whether the plaintiffs, in addition to recovering the mortgage money from the property, are entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the debtors personally, that is to say, whether they can get execution against any other property of theirs after the mortgage property has been exhausted. In my opinion the only question is, whether the decree, as given by the Judge who tried the case, intended to give the costs against the debtors personally, because I am clearly of opinion that, under Section 220 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Judge had jurisdiction to decree the costs against the debtors personally if he thought fit to do so. Therefore, as I said before, the question is, whether upon a construction of the decree which was made by him we are to hold that he has decreed the costs against the debtors personally.3. I thi...

Pearisundari Dassee Vs. Hari Charan Mozumdar Chowdhry

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal211

Wilson, J.1. (Petheram, C.J., and Tottenham, J. concurring).--We think the appellant is entitled to succeed on this appeal. The facts shortly are . these The intending purchaser of certain property, who had paid a portion of his purchase-money, obtained a decree for specific performance against the vendor; but after decree it became apparent that the vendor had made it impossible for the purchaser to carry out the decree.2. The question now is, has the appellant any remedy. He moved the lower Court to have the matter re-heard on the new state of things, and asked to be allowed to establish his right to recover back his purchase-money. The learned Judge in the Court below refused the application, holding that the case is not one in which a review of judgment can be allowed. To me it seems that this is not a matter of review. That is a remedy to be applied for by the person against whom a decree or order has been made. It appears to me that the mass of authority collected in the work of ...

Kishori Mohun Sett Vs. Gul Mohamed Shaha

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal177

Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of money and brought his suit in the Munsif's Court. By an order of the District Judge the suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It was tried by that officer, and a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff. The decree-holder subsequently applied for execution of his decree in the Subordinate Judge's Court. By an order of the District Judge the execution proceedings were transferred to the file of the Munsif. The judgment-debtor objected to this order, but the Munsif decided against him, holding that the plea of jurisdiction could not stand. Upon appeal the District Judge held that the objection of the judgment-debtor on the question of jurisdiction was a good one. The District Judge's attention was called to the case of Balaji Ranchoddas , which has been cited before us, and with reference to that case he observes that there are contradictory rulings.2. We have to observe that this poi...

Okhoymoney Dasee Vs. Nilmoney Mullick

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal282

Wilson, J.1. (Petheram, C.J., and Tottenham, J.; concurring)--This was a suit brought by one Okhoymoney Dasee, the widow of a person named Hurrynarain Mullick, who died on the 25th December 1860, having previously made his will. She claims to be entitled to her husband's property as his heir, and asks in the first place, practically,, that the will be set aside. Then in the alternative she prays, notwithstanding the will, to have it declared that there has been a failure in the provisions of the will, and, consequently, an intestacy under which she is entitled.2. The defendant is a brother of the deceased, and claims to be entitled under the provisions of the will of the deceased to the property left by him. A second defence was raised, viz., that whether the will did or did not give the property to the defendant, the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation.3. The learned Judge who heard the case came to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the terms of the will, the plaintiff as his ...