Kolkata Court January 1889 Judgments
Jogdamba Koer Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal368
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) contends that she is entitled to the properties in dispute as well by inheritance as by right of survivorship, and that, consequently, there can be no escheat. We shall consider these two grounds of the plaintiff's claim separately.2. Upon the question of the plaintiff's title by inheritance, the learned Counsel for the appellant; conceded (and, we think, very properly conceded) that in the face of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Atyanrta Bibee v. Nownit Lal I.L.R. 9 Cal. 315 and Jullessur Kooer v. Uggur Roy I.L.R. 9 Cal. 725, he could not contend for the broad proposition that the plaintiff', as the widow of a gottaja sapinda of Jankisaran, was entitled to a place in the order of succession immediately after her husband. What he contended for was that, though the plaintiff may not have such a high place, she was not excluded from the line of heirs altogether; that the rule excluding females from successio...
Tag this Judgment!Sonatun Shah and ors. Vs. Ali Newaz Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal423
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. The appellant obtained a decree within the terms of Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act for sale of the mortgaged properties. These properties, when sold, failed to realize the of the mortgage debt. The mortgagee, decree-holder, accordingly made an application somewhat vaguely expressed, but evidently intended to ask for a decree within the terms of Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act for the sale of other properties belonging to the judgment-debtor. The Subordinate Judge has refused to make any decree or order under 9. 90, considering himself in some manner restricted by the action of his predecessor in passing the previous decree under Section 88. We think that this is a mistaken view of the law. The terms of Section 90 in our opinion clearly contemplate a decree in the suit for recovery of the mortgage money after sale of the mortgaged properties under a decree given under Section 88. The decree-holder can then apply to the Court, and if he can...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaba Nath Roy Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Durga Prosunno Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal327
Tottenham and O'Kinealy, JJ.1. This was a suit to have it declared that a certain tenure was liable to be sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, the decree having been obtained against the former owner of the tenure.2. It appears that before the decree was passed, the appellant's right and interest had been sold in execution of a money decree, and purchased by the principal defendant in the present suit. The landlord was only a co-sharer. He applied for the sale of the tenure under the provisions of Section 64, Bengal Act VIII of 1869, and the procedure governing that application was that laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. A claim was put in by the purchaser of the tenants' right and interest, who was not registered as transferee in the zemindar's sherishta, under Section 278; and that claim was allowed, and the attachment was withdrawn.3. The present suit was brought to establish the decree-holder's right to sell the property in the hands of the alienee. Both the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Lall Singh and ors. Vs. Debi Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal203
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Gya, in a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants to partition the plots of land, contained in a revenue-paying estate among the persons entitled to the estate, but there is no claim in the plaint to have the estate or the revenue payable to Government partitioned, in the sense that it should be turned into several revenue-paying estates.2. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit, and has directed that the Civil Court Amin shall give effect to it, and the only ground of appeal here is, not that the decree is wrong, but that the decree must be given effect to, not by the Civil Court Amin, but by the Collector of the district, and various cases have been cited before us in support of that view. It is said that, by Section 265 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whenever the estate, in respect of which partition has taken place, is a revenue-paying estate, that partition must be carried ou...
Tag this Judgment!Kristo Ramani Dassee Vs. Kedar Nath Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal620
Pigot and Beverley, JJ.1. The question raised is shortly this: Whether or not the decree obtained by the respondents against the assignor in a suit which was pending at the date of the assignment, and which had ripened into a decree before the assigned decree was fully executed, can be set-off against the unexecuted portion of the assigned decree. The question for decision depends upon the construction of three sections of the Civil Procedure Code; Sections 246, 243 and 233. By Section 246 a set-off of one decree as against another is allowed. By explanation 2 of that section, it is allowed 'where either party is an assignee of one of the decrees, and as well in respect of judgment-debts due by the original assignor as in respect of judgment-debts due by the assignee himself.' It was for some time a subject of controversy in this Court, whether in the case of decrees, both of which were in existence but not yet set-off one against the other, upon the assignment of one of them, the righ...
Tag this Judgment!Bir Chunder Manikya Vs. Raj Mohun Goswami and ors. and Nil Komul Chuck ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal449
Mitter and Grant, JJ.1. The question involved in this appeal is one of limitation under Article 130 of the second schedule of Act XV of 1877; and it arises in this way:The plaintiff, who is the zamindar of Chuckla Rashinabad, instituted a suit on the 28th of December 1861 against one Choituno Mohun Adhicary in the Collector's Court for the purpose of resuming, and for having his right declared to assess rent upon, certain lands within the ambit of his. zemindari which he, the defendant, held as lakheraj. It does not appear from the decree pronounced in that suit, and which we may here mention is the only proceeding before us in connection with it, whether it was a suit under the provisions of Section 30, Regulation II of 1819, or Section 28,1 Act X of 1859, or under any other law; but we have it that subsequently to the passing of Bengal Act VII of 1862, which provided for the transfer of suits instituted under Section 30, Regulation II of 1819, from the Collector's Court to the Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganouri Lal Das and ors. Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal207
Pigot and Macphehson, JJ.1. This case comes before us in revision.2. Ganouri Lall Dass, Dursan Lall Dass, Koonjal Jetti, Murat Singh and Moonshi Singh were convicted, under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, of the offence of rioting, by the Deputy Magistrate of Bhagulpore, and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment each, and were further directed in the words of the sentence 'to execute recognisance bonds in the sum of Rs. 200 each for keeping the peace for a period of two years, or in default to undergo two years' simple imprisonment each.'3. On appeal to the District Judge the conviction and sentence were confirmed, and on the 28th November this rule was obtained in this Court, calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the convicton and sentence should not be set aside. The prisoners were released on bail pending the hearing of the rule.4. One member of the present Bench not having sat in the Bench which granted the rule, we heard the rule opened at leng...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chunder Chowdhury Vs. Gour Sundar Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal356
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. These two cases were tried together by the lower Court and also by us in appeal by consent of parties, because in some respects the same facts arise in both of them. In both cases the plaintiffs, as purchasers from mortgagors, seek to avoid the effect of the same mortgage decree as affecting their properties. The plaintiffs in each case hold separate properties; but the main points raised in the cases and the circumstances upon which their titles depend are in some respects similar. The mortgage decree was obtained on the 30th July 1875 by one Manson. While that suit was pending and before the decree was delivered, the share of one of the three mortgagors in a portion of the mortgaged property was attached in execution of a money decree, and on the 21st July 1875, was, in execution of that decree, sold to Kali Chunder Chowdhry, the father of the plaintiff in Appeal No. 103. Possession was given to that purchaser, on the 26th September 1877, through the Court. T...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chunder Dutt Vs. Dwarkanath Bysack and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal330
Norris, J.1. This was a suit to recover damages for breach of covenants for title and for quiet enjoyment. The case is one of some importance, and it is desirable to set out the facts in detail (His Lordship then proceeded to state the facts as set out above and continued):2. For the plaintiff it was contended that all the defendants were liable on the covenants alluded to-Amrita Lal, Surendra Lal, and Rajluckhee-as-having themselves executed the conveyance; Dwarkanath and Girendra Lal, as being bound by the execution thereof by the Registrar in their respective names.3. Mr. Bonnerjee admitted that the Registrar's authority must rest upon statute, or upon practice or procedure having the force of statute.4. The statutory authority relied on was Section 261 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the practice or procedure having the force of statute that was contained in Rules 341 and 436 of Belchambers' Rules and Orders.5. It was further contended for the plaintiff that the 'conveyance' referr...
Tag this Judgment!Bussunt Kumari Dasi and ors. Vs. Gunamoni Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal415
O'Kinealy and Trevelyan, JJ.1. In this case the point of law which it is necessary to decide is what is the effect as regards notice of possession of the rents of the property in suit. If it be true that the purchaser is bound without notice of the lessor's title, no doubt the learned Judge in the Court below was wrong. If, on the other hand, it be true, as a proposition of law, that he has only notice of the tenancy, and it is the tenant in actual possession alone who can raise any equity against the purchaser, then the Judge in the Court below was right. The point has been expressly decided by the Privy Council. In the case of Barnhart v. Greenshields 9 Moore's P.C. 18 their Lordships, in dealing with this question, say as follows: 'In all the cases to which we have referred, it will be observed that the possession relied on was the actual occupation of the land; and that the equity sought to be enforced was on behalf of the party so in possession, There is no authority in these case...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »