Kolkata Court May 1887 Judgments
Moheshwar Pershad NaraIn Singh Vs. Sheobaran Mahto and Dursun Raut and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal621
1. These three appeals arise out of suits to eject the defendants upon the ground that the period of their holding had expired. The plaintiff's case was based upon an alleged solenamah or agreement entered into between the plaintiff on the one hand and several ryots on the other in previous suits. The previous suits were for arrears of rent, and a dispute arose as to the amount of the jumma. In those suits a petition was put in by the plaintiff on the one band, and it is said that there was a corresponding petition on the other side, agreeing to a particular rate of rent; and agreeing between the parties that the ryots should hold a certain specified area for a term of five years at a given jumma. The term having expired the plaintiff sued to eject. In the first ease before us, namely, appeal from appellate decree No. 2138 of 1886, the defendant in the lower Court admitted that he executed this solentemah ; and we think that as he did so it is now impossible for him to escape the effec...
Tag this Judgment!The Dalhi and London Bank, Ld. Vs. Hem Lall Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal839
Trevelyan, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff Bank seeks to prevent the erection of a new building on the south side of their premises on a piece of land belonging to the defendant, and complains that the erection of such building will materially interfere with the access of light and air heretofore enjoyed by the occupants of the Bank premises.2. The issues raised by counsel, and settled by me at the hearing, were as follows:(1) Are the plaintiffs entitled to the use and access of light free from obstruction in the same manner as the same were enjoyed at the date of the conveyances of March 1836, mentioned in the plaint?(2) How were such use and access of light had and enjoyed?(3) Are the plaintiffs entitled to the use and access of air free from obstruction in the same manner as the same were enjoyed at the date of the conveyances of March 1836, mentioned in the plaint?(4) How were such use and access of air had and enjoyed?(5) What access of light (if any) to their premises have the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Girhar NaraIn Tussuduq HosaIn and ors. Vs. Girhar NaraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal556
Norris, J.1. On 2nd October, 1885, certain certificated mukbtears presented a petition to the District Judge of Patna, complaining that many unauthorised persons were, contrary to law, acting in Court as certificated mukhtears. The District Judge caused the persons complained against be served with notice to show cause why they should not be punished under Section 32, Act XVIII of 1879. On the 6th October 1885, Girhar Narain, one of the persons complained against, appeared by pleaders to show cause. The District Judge first heard what Girhar Narain's pleaders had to say on his behalf, and then, apparently without any objection on his part, put some questions to him.2. The statement of the pleaders and the examination of Girhar Narain are thus recorded by the District Judge . 'It is admitted by his pleaders that Girhar Narain, a certificated revenue agent, appoints pleaders and that he instructs there, in the Civil Courts; but they say that he only does so on account of certain persons ...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Mohun Mukerjee and Grish Chunder Mukerjee Vs. Jogendra Chunder Roy ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal636
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that an application under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act cannot be entertained in respect of sales held in execution of decrees made before the date when that Act came into operation, the execution of the decree having been applied for before the aforesaid date. Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act confers upon the judgment-debtors a new right which they did not possess under the old Act. Therefore the presumption is (in the absence of express legislation or direct implication to the contrary) that its operation is not intended to be retrospective. Its provisions cannot, therefore, be applied to proceedings commenced before the Act came into operation. The rule will be made absolute with costs.Prinsep, J.2. As one of the Judges who referred this case, I think it necessary to state that it was referred as cognate to another case already referred, in which the point raised was one of some difficulty and importance, so as to secure uniformity of prac...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Mohun Roy Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Chunder Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal644
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of two parcels of property purchased by the plaintiff at auction sales some years ago. One of them was purchased at an auction sale on the 18th July 1871, and the sale was confirmed on the 22ud August 1871. The second parcel was purchased on the 21st July, 1871, within twelve years of suit, which was instituted on the 20th July 1883. So that as to the first parcel, that is to say the house, the question arises whether the suit is barred by limitation, it being admitted that the auction sale took place more than twelve years before suit, although the sale was confirmed on a date which would bring it within twelve years. As to that a question arises as to the meaning of the word 'sale' in Article 138 in the second schedule to the Limitation Act. That Article provides that in a suit by a purchaser of and at a sale in execution of a decree, for possession of the purchased land, when the judgment-debtor was in possession at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Girwar Singh and on His Death, Srikishen Singh and ors. Vs. Thakur Nar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal730
Mitter, J.1. (Prinsep, Wilson, Tottenham, and Norris, JJ., concurring): The question referred to the Full Bench is substantially this: Whether the present suit falls under Article 132 or Article 147 of the present Limitation Act. Article 132 provides that, for a suit to enforce payment of money charged upon immoveable property, the period of limitation should be 12 years from the time when the money sued for became due. Article 147 says that, for a suit by a mortgagee for foreclosure or sale, the period of limitation shall be 60 years from the time when the money secured by the mortgage became due. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover money secured by simple mortgage of certain immoveable property by the sale thereof. The mortgage was created by a bond, by which the debtor also personally covenanted to repay the money but within a stipulated time. It would be useful to see what were the periods of limitation prescribed for a snit of this description in the two previous Limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!Mozaffer HosaIn Shaha and ors., Hujjatulla Shaha and ors. and Vs. Kinu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal809
Mitter, J.1. After carefully considering the arguments addressed to us in this case, I retain the opinion which I expressed in Enayet Hossein alias Dhunnoo Mea v. Muddunmoonee Shahoon 14. B.L.R. 155. In the majority of cases as observed in that decision, a contrary view would result in injustice. Generally a co-sharer defaults to pay his quota of Government revenue when he is in insolvent circumstances. In these cases a mere personal decree against the defaulting co-sharer would be useless. On the other hand, if the principle laid down in that case be adopted, I cannot conceive of any instance in which injustice is likely to be done to any party. In cases not governed by any particular legislative enactment, Courts in this country are directed by the Legislature to act according to justice, equity and good conscience. It seems to me that if in this case we give effect to a principle which prevents injustice in many cases and in no conceivable case operates unjustly, which has been acte...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadamba Devi Vs. Protap Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal537
Tottenham, J.1. The suit in question under Section 149 (3) Bengal Tenancy Act, is not a title suit, and need not be stamped as such. It is in the nature of a suit for an injunction under the Specific Relief Act, or else of a declaratory suit.Norris, J.2. I agree that the suit in question is not a title suit. I do not think it is necessary to express any opinion as to what sort of suit it is....
Tag this Judgment!Burnomoyi Dast Vs. Bunwari Lal Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal749
1. The dispute in this case is between the zemindar and the putnidar for a sum of money due to the two parties as representing their rights to land taken under the Land Acquisition Act for public purposes. No ryots have appeared to make any claim. The District Judge, on the authority of the case of Godadhar Das v. Dhunput Singh 7 C. 585, has held that the compensation should be divided equally between the zemindar and the putnidar, and that no reason for departing from this rule has been shown in the present case. The putnidar appeals, and contends that, inasmuch as he has received no abatement of the amount of rent payable by him to the zemindar, he is entitled to the full amount awarded. The amount in this case is only Rs. 64-3-3 pie, but it is said that this is only a test suit and has been brought; up to this Court to determine the principle on which other and similar cases should be decided. We accept the authority quoted by the District Judge and also the authority of the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Fazal Rahaman and anr. Vs. Imam Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal583
Ghose, J.1. We think that Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the present case. Upon an examination of the Code it will be found that the preceding section, that is Section 316, refers to sales of immoveable property held under the provisions of the Code, and it provides that after a sale has become absolute a certificate of sale is to be given to the purchaser; and then Section 317 provides that 'no suit shall be maintained against the certified purchaser on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf on any other person or on behalf of some one through whom such other person claims.' It will be observed that Sections 316 and 317 find their place in the chapter on Execution of Decrees, Part G. of which is headed 'Of Sale and Delivery of Property,' that is to say, sales in execution of decrees of Civil Courts, and therefore it is obvious that Section 317 can have no application to any other kind of sale than sales in execution of decrees of Civil Courts...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »