Kolkata Court February 1887 Judgments
J. Mylne and ors. Vs. Lala Parbhu Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal401
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent in this appeal, to have it declared that certain properties mortgaged to him by a deed executed by Mussamut Dulhin Bishnath Koer on behalf of Dulpati Singh, her adopted son, during his minority are really owned by the latter as adopted son of the late Aribhunjun Singh who was the husband of Bishnath Koer; and are liable to be sold in execution of the plaintiff's decree obtained upon the said mortgage bond on the 26th of June, 1882.2. The properties in question having been attached in execution of that decree were released by the Court on the 29th February, 1884, in accordance with a claim put forward by the defendant No. 2, appellant before us, who had purchased the same at auction in November, 1880, in execution of decrees held by other persons against Ripubhunjun Singh. The sale certificates are dated the 20th of January, 1881. This suit was brought in August 1884 within one year after the decision of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Supramanyan Setty Vs. Hurry Froo Mug.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal374
ORDERTrevelyan, J.1. The question is whether the attorney has a lien in priority to the attaching creditor for costs incurred subsequent to the attachment.2. It is admitted by Mr. Bonnerjee that the attorney is entitled to a lien for any costs incurred prior to the attachment. There is apparently no authority on the point. It seems to me to be wrong to decide that the attorney can go on holding this fund subject to a lien for his costs subsequently incurred. It seems to me what is attached is the right of the judgment-debtor at the time of the attachment, that is, the money subject to the lien for costs then incurred. Babu Nobin Chund Bural will be entitled to be paid the amount due to him for costs up to the 18th June 1886, the date of the attachment. Then Mr. Bonnerjee's client will be entitled to any balance that may remain as far as his claim extends ; any further balance, if any, to Babu Nobin Chund Bural in satisfaction of his claim for costs. Costs of both parties to be paid out...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Dasi and ors. Vs. Sudhendu Mohun Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal435
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in these two suits are purchasers at a sale held for arrears of Government revenue, and they sue for possession of a tract of chur land which they say belongs to their estate and forms mouzah Kusundia. They also state that this land was measured and depicted in the Government Revenue Survey as portion of that estate; that after wards it diluviated and has now re-formed on the same site. The plain tiffs further state that, on attempting to take possession of this land, they have been resisted by the defendants, and they accordingly bring this suit against a large number of persons, numbering 67, who, they say, have acted in concert and collusively. An objection was taken in the written statement of the defendants that the lands were obscurely described in the plaint, that the suit has been wrongly brought against several persons who claim to hold portions of this land under different titles, and the defendants also disputed the correctness of t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Golam Ahmed Kazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal314
ORDERW. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that this rule must be made absolute to set aside the conviction.2. The facts of the case are that a person went on one occasion and informed the Police that he had been robbed in the street of a shawl, but in the statement which he made to the Police he did not indicate any particular person or describe any person in such a way as by any possibility could be supposed to implicate any one as the person who committed the robbery. All he said was that he was robbed by a person whom he did not see, so that in the statement that he made he did not say anything to cast suspicion on any one in particular. Under these circumstances, there was no offence within the meaning of Section 182 of the Penal Code. That section provides that if any person gives any information to a public servant with the intention of inducing him to put his powers in force to the injury or annoyance of any person, or to do or omit anything which such public servant would not hav...
Tag this Judgment!E. Taylor and anr. Vs. the Collector of Purnea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal424
1. This appeal arises out of an assessment of compensation made under Act X of 1870, the Land Acquisition Act, by the District Judge of Purnea.2. It appears that, before the year 1884, the claimant Mr. Taylor was lessee of an indigo factory at Manihari. On the 15th February in that year, be or his wife purchased the property from those under whom he had previously held the leasehold, and thus became the owner of the property. The Government found it necessary for the purposes of a railway to acquire a portion of the land held by him as part of, or in connection with, the factory. We are here concerned with three plots, which are shown on the map and marked A, B and E. On the 4th March, 1884, the proper officer published the general notification required under Section 9, paragraph 1 of the Act. On the 20th March, acting under the powers given to them by Section ] 7 of the Act, the officers of Government took possession of these lands. At various dates between the month of October 1884 a...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chand Dutt and ors. Vs. Watson and Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal214
Wilson, J.1. The next group of questions that arise are, what remedy the plaintiff a are entitled to in this case. In order to ascertain that, it is necessary to determine one question first. Has there happened anything which amounts to an actual ouster as between the plaintiff's and the defendants, their co-sharers? It appears to us that there has. It has been contended that mere cultivation by one co-tenant is not necessarily ouster. It may very well be so. But the question is whether on the facts of this case there has been an ouster. The facts are that, prior to the termination of the year 1290, Messrs. Watson were in possession, under one title or another, of the whole 16 annas of Sildah. While so in possession, they received the rents of the ryoti lands, and they enjoyed the khas lands according to their character. It is clear on the evidence that there are three classes of khas lands in this pergunnah : first, a large quantity of indigo lands which were used for indigo cultivati...
Tag this Judgment!HossaIn Bux Vs. Mutookdharee Lall and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal312
W. Comer Petheram Petheram, C.J.1. It appears, on an examination of the Code, that the order in question is not a suit within the meaning of Section 143 of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885, as the operation of that section is confined to suits between landlord and tenant. This is not a proceeding between landlord and tenant, but a proceeding initiated by some third person who does not fill either of these positions. Under these circumstances, and it not being shown to us that unless it comes within the meaning of Section 143, this order would be appealable at all, we must hold that the order is not appealable, and therefore we must dismiss the appeal for that reason....
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Mohun Das Vs. Luckhimoni Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal384
Prinsep and Brevely, JJ.1. The debtors apparently are partners in some firm. The decree-holder seeks to attach and sell the interest of one of these debtors, which, in his application for execution of the decree, he terms to be a debt due to that judgment-debtor from the other judgment-debtor. The amount is uncertain. It is not even shown that the business of the firm has been wound up, nor is there any certainty that such a debt exists. We cannot therefore agree with the lower Courts that such an interest can be attached and sold in execution of the decree. The case of Syud Tuffuzool Hossein Khan v. Rughoonath Pershad 14 M.I.A. 40 : 7 B.L.R. 186 seems to us to be exactly in point. The order of the lower Court is therefore set aside. The debtor-appellant will receive his costs in all Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Prodhan Vs. Gopi Mohun Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal386
1. The decree now under execution for arrears of rent was passed on the 21st July 1882, for a sum less than Rs. 500. Execution was taken out on the 19th May 1885, and notice under Section 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure issued before the decree was actually put into execution. On the 20th of June the judgment-debtor objected to execution and applied to have the ex parte decree set aside. On the same day the application for execution was struck off. On the 21st of November following the application on behalf of the judgment-debtor to obtain a re-hearing of the suit Appeal from Order, No. 403 of 1886, against the order of H. Peterson, Esq. Officiating Judge of Dinagepore, dated the 18th of August 1886, affirming the Order of Baboo Sitikantha Mullick, Munsif of that district, dated the 22nd of May 1886.was dismissed. On the 3rd of February 1886, application was made to execute this decree. It is now objected under Section 58, Beng. Act VIII of 1869, that execution is barred inasmuch as...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Bux Vs. Nundo Lal Gossami and anr. and Sital Chunder Mukerji and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal321
1. This is a matter under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, in which the Subordinate Judge has set aside the sale on receiving from the debtor what, in his opinion, represented the money due to the decree-holder, and the percentage allowed to the auction-purchaser. Three objections are raised before us : first, that the case does not come within the Bengal Tenancy Act ; secondly, that the deposit was not made in time ; and, thirdly, that from the nature of the deposit made, it was not a proper deposit such as would entitle the judgment-debtor to relief. It is unnecessary in the view that we take of the merits of the case to consider the first point. The facts found by the Subordinate Judge seem sufficiently to show that the deposit, if it were a proper deposit, was made in proper time. We are, however, of opinion that the third objection is fatal. The judgment-debtor deposited a sum of money in cash and also a Government Promissory Note for Rs. 1,000, which, if negotiated, would p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›