Kolkata Court December 1889 Judgments
Durga Sunduri Dasi and Durga Sunduri Debi Vs. Rakhal Das Addy, Executo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal459
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. Now comes the other question, and of course that is the important question in the case, namely, whether the plaintiff who has purchased this taluk, upon which this hat has been held for so many years, is entitled to an injunction to restrain the owners of the neighbouring land from holding a market upon it.2. The argument for the plaintiff is that this is an ancient market which was at some time or other resumed by the Government, and that the Government had since re-settled the land with the predecessor in title of the plaintiff; and that inasmuch as upon the re-settlement of the land the amount of the revenue which had to be paid for it to the Government was arrived at by taking into calculation the profits of the market (the profits which arose from the tolls properly so called), that is to say, a share of the articles sold in the market taken for the privilege of selling them in the market, therefore that must be taken as a grant from the Crown of a right ...
Tag this Judgment!Khadijah Khanum Vs. Abdool Kurreem Shemji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal344
Wilson, J.1. I am inclined to think that in Section 155 (3) of the Evidence Act the words, 'which is liable to be contradicted, 'mean' which is relevant to the issue.' That being so I think the safer course is to admit the evidence tendered so far as regards the Koran, for as to that book the plaintiff has given substantive evidence to shew that the writing in it is that of Aga Mirza. The witness now to be contradicted has said it is not, and if his evidence can be impeached by showing that he has formerly made a statement inconsistent with his present one, there remains some evidence for the plaintiff relative to the issue.2. But as to the letter P.P., that stands on a different footing. On this point the plaintiff has given no evidence, but has relied on what might be brought out from the defendant's witnesses, and they all say that the particular passage in question is not in Aga Mirza's handwriting, and the witness to be contradicted says the same thing. If I am to allow him to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Manik Chand Golecha Vs. Jagat Settani Pran Kumari Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal518
Mitter and Beverley, JJ.The respondents filed cross-objections as regards the findings on the third and fourth issues, but Mr. Evans candidly admitted before us that he could not contest the accuracy of the lower Court's conclusion as to the written authority set up. Mr. Woodroffi, on behalf of the appellant, contended that the allegation made in the written statement to the effect that the adoption was made in pursuance of an authority derived from Gobind Chand not having been made out, he defendants should not have been allowed to set up a new case which is not to be found in their written statement, namely, that by a special custom of the tribe and family, the widow was entitled to adopt without permission. We are of opinion that the written statement is sufficiently broad in its terms to include the plea referred to. The existence of the custom in question is not inconsistent with an express permission or authority to adopt in particular cases; and we think that the fifth issue in ...
Tag this Judgment!The Ship fannie Skolfield
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal337
Wilson, J.1. This is an application, under Rule 5 of the Additional Rules for Vice-Admiralty Courts abroad, issued by the Privy Council, in addition to the Rules of 1832, under 2 and 3 Will. IV, c. 51. The applicant, the promo-vent, asks to have expunged a paragraph, of the answer which objects to the jurisdiction of the Court, on the ground that the defendant, having appeared, absolutely and not under protest, is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the Court, and that the promovent is, under the practice of the Court as a Court of Vice-Admiralty, entitled to have the paragraph expunged. Whether he is right in this contention depends upon what system of procedure governs the matter. If the procedure embodied in the Vice-Admiralty rules issued under 2 and 3 Will, IV, c. 51, applies, the promovent's contention seems to be right, otherwise not.2. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the several enactments and rules affecting the question. The Act 2 and 3 Will. IV, c. 51, empo...
Tag this Judgment!Tariniprosad Roy Vs. Narayan Kumari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal302
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. 1. This is a suit which was brought by a landlord against a tenant to recover his rent, and the decree upon the face of it is a decree for a sum of money without charging the tenure with any lien or charge of any kind, and from that I apprehend that it was a suit brought against the tenant person - ally to recover the amount which was due from him to the landlord. This decree having been obtained, the landlord, the decree-holder, makes an application to attach the property of his debtor to answer the decree. The property which he elects to attach is not the tenure, and the question which arises here is whether he was entitled to pursue his remedy against other properties before he had sold the tenure itself.2. The only section which can be relied upon by the defendant, the tenant, is Section 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This section provides that a tenant under these circumstances shall not be liable to ejectment for arrears, but his tenure or holding shall be ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Chand Bhakat and ors. Vs. Gisborne and Co. Decree-purchasers a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal341
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. In second appeal before us two points have been urged, first, that there can be no transfer of a portion of a decree, and that the transferee of a portion of a decree is not in a position to carry on the execution-proceedings. In support of this contention we are referred to the case of Seetaput Roy v. Ali Hossein 24 W.R. 11, where Mr. Justice Mitter says at page 12 of the report: 'It is doubtful whether under Section 208, Act VIII of 1859,' which is the section corresponding to Section 232 of the present Code, 'they could be so added upon the record as co-decree-holders: Section 208 refers to the assignment of a whole decree not of a portion of a decree. Therefore, as 1 have already observed, it is doubtful whether the Court had power to place the present special appellants as co-decree-holders on the record. But be that as it may, we think that there has been no proper application for executing the decree as far as the mesne profits are concerned.' We are...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›