Kolkata Court November 1889 Judgments
Ram Lochun Koer Vs. Khub Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal261
W. Comer Petheram, Knight, C.J. and Norris, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to recover possession of a fractional share in mouza Bishampur Sadbo, as having been sold and handed over to her by the owners on the 9th of March 1887. The defence upon which the present question arises is, that, after the sale to the plaintiff, the share of her vendor, including the share purchased by the plaintiff, was attached under a decree against the plaintiff's vendor, and that thereupon the plaintiff preferred a claim to the share now in dispute under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that claim was enquired into and rejected on the 6th of August 1887. The present suit was instituted on 7th August 1888, and the question which we have to determine is, whether this suit is barred by limitation.2. In our opinion it is. Section 283 provides that the party against whom an order under Sections 280, 281, or 282 is passed, may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Seogobind Sahoo and ors. Vs. Deoki Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal277
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Mozufferpore, reversing an order of the Munsif with reference to the measurement of some land under Section 158 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and this is an appeal by the ryots.2. The proceedings in this case were initiated by the landlords under that section for the purpose of having the situation, quantity and boundaries of the land held by certain ryots ascertained and determined, and these proceedings were initiated in the Court of the Munsif. The Munsif was of opinion that it was necessary that a local enquiry should take place, and accordingly, under the powers of Sub-section 2 of that section, which embodied Chap. XXV of the Code of Civil Procedure, an Ameen was appointed for the purpose of holding such an enquiry.3. The Ameen went to the spot, and he found when he arrived there that the real dispute was a question of the boundaries of the tenants' holding. The tenants claimed to bold a certain numbe...
Tag this Judgment!Bunwari Lal Mookerjee Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal290
Mitter and Beverley, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the view taken by the District Judge is correct, and the present suit is not within Article 3, Schedule II, Act IX of 1887.2. The papers will be returned, so that the District Judge may remit the record with this opinion to the Small Cause Court Judge....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›