Kolkata Court April 1889 Judgments

Mohima Chunder Shaha and ors. Vs. Hazari Pramanik and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Prinsep and Trevelyan, JJ.1. The defendants are cultivating ryots who were placed on this property by the Collector and have held possession for many years, but not for a sufficient period to create a right of occupancy, they are therefore of the class termed in the Bengal Tenancy Act 'non-occupancy ryots.' The plaintiffs in a suit against Government have succeeded in proving their title to the land.2. The matter for our decision is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to eject the defendants, non-occupancy ryots, as having no right to hold the lands because the Government from whom they de-rived their title had no right and title itself, and no relationship of landlord and tenant has ever existed between the plaintiff's and defendants by recognition of their right to cultivate by receipt of rent.3. In order to establish the right of defendants as non-occupancy ryots under the Bengal Tenancy Act and as such not liable to ejectment except under its special provisions (none of which admit...

Horitarun Chuckerbutti and anr. Vs. Saraswati Dasi and Sriram Shaha an ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal741

Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. This is a suit brought by an occupancy ryot to recover possession of land of which he has been dispossessed by his landlord. Under the decisions, of this Court, it is settled law that the suit could have been brought within twelve years from the date of dispossession, inasmuch as the title of the tenant was disputed and put in issue in the case. The matter which we are called upon to decide is whether this rule, which has been long in force in this Court, has been affected by the limitation prescribed in the Bengal Tenancy Act, Schedule Ill, Article 3. It is there enacted, that a suit to recover possession of land claimed by the plaintiff as an occupancy ryot must be brought within two years from the date of dispossession. Section 184 of the Bengal Tenancy Act declares that suits specified in Schedule III of the Act shall be instituted within the time prescribed in that schedule for them respectively. It seems to us that by this enactment, it was intended to pro...

Nundun Lall Vs. Rai Joykishen and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal599

Tottenham and Gordon, JJ.1. The question in this appeal is whether execution of the decree, obtained by the plaintiff-appellant against the respondents, is barred by limitation.2. The case is governed by Article 179 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. The decree was passed in the Court of First Instance on the 14th September 1881. The case came up ultimately on second appeal to the High Court, and the High Court's decision, Secretary of State v. Nundun Lall I.L.R. 10 Cal. 435, was passed on the 18th January 1884. Applications for execution were made in July and December 1886. Article 179, Clause 2, provides that, where there has been an appeal, the date of the final decree or order of the Appellate Court is the date from which limitation begins to run.3. Upon the face of the proceedings, this application would appear not to be barred by limitation; but the Lower Appellate Court, upon consideration of various authorities cited by it,-cases in the Calcutta High Court and in tha...

V.A. Dacosta Vs. O.E. Coley

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal200

Pigot and Beverley, JJ.1. The award in this case is impeached in appeal on two main grounds; one, that the submission to arbitration was duly revoked before the order of the Court was made under which the agreement for reference was ordered to be filed under Section 523; and the other, that the proceedings had in the Court of the Subordinate Judge were irregular, and such that the arbitrators who made the award, upon which the decree is based, were not a properly-constituted body of arbitrators at all, and that the award for that reason is bad. The first question is as to the right of the appellant to revoke the submission to arbitration which, it is clear, can only be on good grounds.2. The submission was in March 1886. We have nothing before us to enable us to determine whether anything was done by the arbitrators, though it is stated that two or three meetings were held. But, after the submission, the arbitrator appointed by the respondent went to Darjeeling for the benefit of his h...

Haro Pria Dabia Vs. Shama Charan Sen

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal592

Trevelyan and Banerjee, JJ.1. It seems to us clear that the learned District Judge is wrong in the conclusion at which he has arrived. The material facts are shortly as follows: The appellant obtained a decree against the respondent. The respondent on being arrested on this decree, filed his petition under the insolvency section of the Code of Civil Procedure. The procedure laid down in Chapter XX seems to have been carried out, and, in course of time, the creditors were required to prove their debts. The appellant before us, although she seems to have received notice, did not attend, and, in the result, her name was not jncluded in the schedule. The scheduled creditors, that is to say, the persons who proved their debts, have been paid and the residue of the property in the hands of the receiver has been paid out to the insolvent. Now this decree-holder seeks to execute her decree against the property of the insolvent.2. We have heard argument on behalf of the respondent, and the effe...

Madhuram Barsick Vs. Khatu Bibi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal622

Prinsep and Trevelyan, JJ.1. The District Judge in appeal has found that plaintiff has bought the right, title and interest which Mahabat Ali had in an eight-anna share of a certain howla, This was conveyed to the plaintiff by an unregistered document, registration not being compulsory within the terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act, because the value of the property conveyed was less than Rs. 100. The vendors were out of possession when the sale took place, and the plaintiff seeks to obtain possession on this title as against certain defendants who have been found to have no title at all.2. The question raised before us on second appeal is whether, having regard to the terms of Section 64, Clause 3, of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale to the plaintiff has conferred any valid title, inasmuch as it has not been completed either by a registered document or by delivery of possession of the property sold. As an authority for this, we have been referred to some observations mad...

Bonwari Lal Roy Vs. Khudiram Mookerjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal584

Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Burdwan, appointing the respondent as the guardian of a minor Hindu widow; and the only question raised before us is whether the respondent, who is the brother of the minor, or the appellant, who is her husband's sister's son, and the reversionary heir, has the preferential right to the certificate.2. It appears that a certificate had been granted to the minor's mother-in-law which was subsequently recalled by reason of her unfitness to manage the property owing to her extreme old age; and the only reason assigned by the learned Judge for giving preference to the minor's paternal relations seems to be the fact of a certificate having once been granted to one of her husband's relations and of its having been subsequently recalled.3. That in our opinion would be no good reason for passing over the claims of other relations on her husband's side, if no other reason is made out against them, and if under the Hindu ...

In Re: the Ship champion.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal66

Pigot and Trevelyan, JJ.1. In this case the decree from which it is sought to institute an appeal was signed on the 4th April 1889, the memorandum of appeal against that decree was presented to the Registrar on the 6th April 1889, and was rejected; and 'this is an application made to us, sitting in the Appellate Jurisdiction from the Ordinary Original Side, for an order directing the Registrar to admit the appeal.2. The application is made by the promovents, in whose favour a decree for 1,500 was made in the Court below; and there is no question that the formalities prescribed by Rule 35 of the Rules and Regulations, made under an order of Council of June 1832, with respect to the bringing of appeals, were not in this case followed; and it is argued that the appeal under those circumstances cannot be admitted, a much longer period than fifteen days' having passed since the time at which the decree was pronounced in open Court. It is contended on behalf of the parties seeking to appeal ...

Sujaat Ali and anr. Vs. Bunseedhur

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal540

Tottenham J.1. This is an appeal against a decree made by the lower Court upon a mortgage bond. The decree is made in favour of the plaintiff for the sum claimed, with costs and interest. The decree provides that should the defendant No. 1 fail to pay up the amount of the decree within six months from the date thereof, the mortgaged properties shall be sold; and if they be insufficient to satisfy the decree, then the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to recover the balance from the person or other property of the defendant No. 1.2. The defendant No. 1 has appealed against this decree upon various grounds. There is no dispute as to the execution of the bond, but it is contended, on his behalf, that the Court was wrong in making the debtor or his other property liable for the debt; for it is contended, that the mortgage bond itself limits the plaintiff's' means of relief to the mortgaged property, excepting in the event of the mortgaged property having been sold by auction on account of arr...

Binda Bibi Vs. Jitu Lal Mahta

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal549

Banerjee, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this case. The facts are shortly these: One Joyram Lal Mahta executed a will on the 22nd April 1878, whereby amongst other things, he bequeathed a sum of Rs. 5,000 to his son's daughter, Jodha Bibi, to be paid to her out of a certain sum of money that was due to him from the Maharajah of Bettia. The testator died on the 2nd February 1881, and Jodha predeceased him, having died in October 1879. The plaintiff' Binda Bibi, who is the daughter of Jodha Bibi, was, of course, born before the death of Joyram Lal; and the money out of which the legacy to Jodha Bibi was to be paid was realized from the Maharajah of Bettia on the 7th December 1884.2. That being the state of things, the plaintiff, Binda Bibi, brought this suit to recover the sum of Rs. 5,000, with interest, upon the ground that she was the sole heir of Jodha Bibi.3. The defence was that the bequest had failed by reason of Jodha Bibi having predeceased the testator.4. The Court belo...