Kolkata Court May 1889 Judgments
Kristo Lal Singh and anr. Vs. Kristo Bulluv Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal643
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by a landlord, who is the putnidar, to recover the rent of the durputni.2. The answer which is made by the defendant is this,-He says: a part of the rent I owe you, and I have paid that into Court; as for the rest I am not liable to you, because at the time when that rent accrued I had transferred the durputni to a purchaser under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, Sections 11 and 12, and that transfer, so far as I was concerned, was complete.3. The answer which the landlord makes to that is this,-He says: that is quite true, you did make the transfer you say, but 1 did not receive notice of it from the Collector, and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that you had transferred your interest, you are still liable for the rent, and the question for us to consider is that question.4. Section 11 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides that every permanent tenure shall be capable of being transferred. That may or may not be declaratory of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Coomar Ghose Vs. Prosonna Coomar Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal640
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to have his rights declared under a contract made between him and the defendants, and to obtain an injunction against the defendants restraining them from breaking the contract.2. The contract is in respect of some land as to the ownership of which some years ago there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants That dispute was finally settled by the present plaintiff giving up all claim to the land, and admitting that it was the property of the defendants, and in consideration of his doing so the defendants agreed to allow him to go on to the land at all times for the purpose of using a particular corner of it as a privy. That went on for a great number of years apparently, but in course of time the defendants used this land for purposes inconsistent with its continued user in this way, and though the plaintiff might have gone on to the land and used it in the same way, he would have become a nuisance, and what he d...
Tag this Judgment!Umatara Deby Vs. Mohesh Chunder Chuttopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal639
Gordon, J.1. We think that the preliminary objection taken by the respondent in this case, that no appeal lies, must prevail. The appeal arises out of a claim for cesses less than Rs. 100, which, under Section 47 of the Cess Act (Bengal Act VIII of 1880), [Act IX of 1880?] are made recoverable in the same way as an arrear of rent. And, under the definition of rent given in Clause 5 of Section 3 of the Bengal Tenancy Act (Act VIII of 1885), rent 'includes also money recoverable under any enactment for the time being in force as if it was rent.' That being so, the suit is really a suit for rent; and as the defendant has raised no question in his written statement as to the amount of cess which is payable by him to the plaintiff, no dispute has been decided between the parties which would have the effect of bringing the case under the provision of para 4 of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. We think the case does not fall within that paragraph, and that, consequently, no appeal lies ...
Tag this Judgment!Jugut Chandra Audhikari Vs. Gourmoni Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal58
Tottenham and Banerjee, JJ.1. The main question raised in this case is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts of the case are shortly these: The defendant, the appellant before us, obtained a decree against the plaintiff's brother, and, in execution of that decree, sold certain immoveable properties, alleging that they were the properties of the judgment-debtor. The purchase was made in the name of one Kandarpa Narain Singh, and the question was raised as to whether Kandarpa Narain Singh was the benamidar for the defendant or for the plaintiff's brother.3. This dispute led to a suit by the defendant against the plaintiff's brother, Iswar Chandra Audhikari, to have it declared that the defendant was the real purchaser of the property. Iswar Chandra Audhikari filed an answer to the effect that he was the real purchaser: but before the suit was finally disposed of, he died, and his brother, the present plaintiff, was made a defe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Koilash Chandra Chakrabarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal658
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. In this case the petitioner, Koilash Chandra Chakrabarty, was convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of Netrokona of the offences of house-breaking by night and of voluntarily causing hurt under Sections 323 and 456 of the Penal Code, respectively, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment in respect of the first offence, and to a fine of Rs. 50 in respect of the second. He appealed to the Sessions Judge of Mymensingh, but his appeal was dismissed; and he now moves this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 456 of the Code on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that he had entered the complainant's house with the intent to commit theft or any other offence.2. In our opinion the conviction and sentence ought to be maintained. The facts are these: The complainant, who is apparently a person in comfortable circumstances, lives in a country village in a house which is divided into several distinct apartments. One of these he u...
Tag this Judgment!Bichitranund Dass and ors. Vs. Bhugbut Perai and Dukhai Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal668
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. In this case we think it clear that the conviction cannot stand. The alleged offence was unquestionably and admittedly, if it was committed at all, committed within Kheonjur. Now there seems to be no question that Kheonjur and Mohurbunj are tributary mehals standing exactly upon the same footing with regard to their relations with the British Government and their independence. This is apparent from the treaty engagements executed by the Rajahs of these respective territories which are set out at pages 184 to 187 of the 1st volume of Aitchison's Treaties. A comparison of these two engagements shows that they are practically identical in terms, and the learned Counsel who appears for the Crown has not disputed that proposition. Now this place Kheonjur being in this respect the same as Mohurbunj, we have to consider the effect of the Full Bench case The Empress v. Keshub Mohajan I.L.R. 8 Cal. 985, and the cases that gave rise to that reference to the Full Ben...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Ship Champion
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal84
Pigot, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of a Judge of this Court sitting on the Original Side in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Court respecting a claim for salvage brought by the owners, master, and crew of the Steam Tug Rescue against the British Ship Champion and the cargo on board of her.2. It was not disputed that salvage services were rendered by the Rescue to the Champion. The learned Judge in the Original Court held that such services were rendered, and he awarded the sum of 1,500 in respect of them; and he directed Rs. 5,000 to be deposited by the impugnants with the Registrar to meet the promovents' costs.3. The appeal is from that decision. The appellants contended that the amount awarded is wholly inadequate, and that the amount ordered to be deposited for costs is wholly inadequate for the purpose.4. The Champion, on the afternoon of the 24th, when running for Saugor, was in this condition. She was strained, both in deck and poop, from the tremendous bumping whi...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhal Das Addy, Executor to the Estate of Late Govind Chunder Addy Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal653
Rampini, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment from an area of about half a bigha of land after service of notice to quit. The land has been found by both the lower Courts not to be agricultural or horticultural land. The Lower Appellate Court remarks that 'it is too small for such a purpose, it is in a town or suburb, and it seems always to have been used for trading or residentially purposes.' The Court of First Instance gave the plaintiff a decree, but the Lower Appellate Court has held that the defendants have a right of occupancy in the land in consequence of its occupation by their vendor and his family for about a century, and that, therefore, they cannot be ejected. The learned Additional District Judge cites the case of Gungadhur Shikdar v. Azimuddm Shah Biswas I.L.R. 8 Cal. 960 as an authority for the view which he expresses, that it is not only agricultural tenants that can plead occupancy rights, and that there may be rights of occupancy in suburban lands let for purposes of bu...
Tag this Judgment!Shewbarat Koer Vs. Nirpat Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal596
Tottenham and Gordon, JJ.1. It appears to us that in this case the High Court has no jurisdiction either to entertain a second appeal, or to interfere with the order of the District Judge under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The matter in dispute is an entry in the record of rights and of rents settled, made under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The settlement appears to have been made ex parte, the Zemindar not having been present. Subsequently the Zemindar objected to the entry, and sought to have it corrected. The Revenue Officer declined to re-open the matter, and the Zemindar appealed against his order (and apparently she had a right to do so) to the District Judge, who is Special Judge under the Tenancy Act. The District Judge held that the only remedy which the Zemindar had was to apply to set aside the ex parte order under Section 108* of the Code of Civil Procedure, and he dismissed the appeal. The Zemindar has preferred a second appeal to this Court.3. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Mungeshur Kuar and ors. Vs. Jamoona Prashad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal603
Tottenham and Gordon, JJ.1. It is contended on behalf of the appellants, firstly, that the case before the Subordinate Judge was in the nature of a claim under Section 278, Civil Procedure Code, and that therefore no appeal lay to the District Judge; and, secondly, that the property is not liable to be sold, because it devolved on the appellants as heiresses of their father and not of their mother.2. As regards the first point, we are of opinion that the case is governed by the provisions of Sections 2341 and 244, Civil Procedure Code. It is clear from what we have already said that the appellants were brought on the record as representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor, without reference to their liability or non-liability as such representatives. This was in accordance with para 1 of Section 234. Then as to their liability, that question has to be ascertained according to the provisions of para 2 of Section 234 by the Court executing the decree In the present case the question wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »