Kolkata Court June 1889 Judgments
Faizunnessa Bibi and Khairunnessa Bibi and ors. Vs. Abrahim Khan and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal169
Tottenham, J.1. These are appeals against orders of remand purporting to have been made by the Lower Appellate Court under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section provides that if the Court against whose decree the appeal is made has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point, and the decree upon such point is reversed in appeal, the Appellate Court may, if it thinks fit, remand the case, and direct the lower Court to proceed to investigate the case on the merits.2. The suits were to recover mesne profits in respect of land of which the plaintiffs had been dispossessed, and for which apparently they had obtained possessory decrees.3. The first Court laid down various issues: in one case six, and in the other eight; and having tried most of those issues, it dismissed the suits apparently upon their merits. The issue the first Court did not try was as to the amount of mesne profits the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. The findings upon some of the other issues bei...
Tag this Judgment!Aubhoy Churn Mohunt Vs. Shamont Lochun Mohunt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal788
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent from an order of Mr. Justice Beverley, making a rule absolute to re-hear an appeal.2. The case was originally a second appeal to this Court, which was heard by a Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Wilson and Mr. Justice Beverley. The second appeal was decided on the 1st June 1888, and it was decided in favour of the defendant; and the plaintiff, being dissatisfied with that decision, was desirous of having it reviewed, and, accordingly, on the 24th July 1888, an application for review bearing the proper stamp was filed with the Deputy Registrar of this Court. Section 623* of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that such an application shall come before the Judge or Judges who were parties to the original decree. Those Judges, as I said just now, were Mr. Justice Wilson and Mr. Justice Beverley. Various reasons prevented them from sitting together until the month of March 1889,...
Tag this Judgment!Jonardon Mundul Dakna and anr. Vs. Sambhu Nath Mundul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal807
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain lands which they alleged had been demised to them by a certain landlord in the year 1289. The defence was, that the defendants held the land in question from a period prior to the execution of the lease in 1289 as a part of his jammai, and therefore the plaintiffs had no right to recover. They also pleaded that they were in possession of the land for more than twelve years, and, therefore, the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation.2. Upon this state of the pleadings, certain issues were raised between the parties in the Court of First Instance: one was as to limitation, and another as to the title of the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively. Upon the application of both parties, the case was referred to arbitration; but the arbitrator to whom the case was referred confined his award only to the question of limitation, he being of opinion that the defendants had held posses...
Tag this Judgment!Khepu Nath Sikdar and ors. Vs. Grish Chunder Mukerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal731
Trevelyan, J.1. This is an application to set aside an order of the Deputy Magistrate of Nattore, dated 7th May 1889, by which he directs that the records of a case, brought by Khepu Nath Sikdar against Grish Chunder Mukerji, be submitted to the District Magistrate for the prosecution of Khepu Sikdar under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, and of Mohendra Mukerji and Panchcowrie Mukerji for abetting this offence. He then goes on to say; 'All these persons may be tried under any other section of the Penal Code that may be found applicable. A list of witnesses for the prosecution will be attached to the record.' That order being made, and the record being sent, whether to the Magistrate or where does not appear, an order was made by Mr. E.F. Ainslie, who describes himself as 'Deputy Magistrate in charge,' directing issue of warrants against these three persons for their arrest, and fixing a day for the hearing; and directing, furthermore, that the case should remain on his file.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Abhiram Dass Vs. Gopal Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal48
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. The matter under appeal before us is an order by the District Judge admitting the respondent as a caveator under Section 69 of the Probate and Administration Act (V of 1881).2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies against such an order We have been referred to Section 86 of that Act, which declares, that every order made by a District Judge, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by the Act 'shall be subject to appeal to the High Court, under the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals.' It is contended on one hand that, inasmuch as this is not a decree, there is no appeal We, have been referred to the case of Brojonath Pal v. Dasmony Dassee 2 C.L.R. 589, in which the law in this respect has been clearly laid down by Sir RICHARD GARTH, the late Chief Justice. The order in that case was found to be an order admitting a review of judgment, and it was there held that that order was not appealable under the Code of C...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chunder Dutta and ors. Vs. Soonder NaraIn Deo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal747
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. The lower Courts have concurrently held that this application to execute is barred by limitation.2. The appellants' pleader contends that the application is within three years, inasmuch as it was within three years from the date of the appearance of his pleader to oppose an application made by the judgment-debtor to set aside the sale held in execution. We agree with the lower Court that the appearance of the pleader to oppose the proceedings taken by the judgment-debtor cannot properly be regarded as an application within the terms of Article 179 to take some step in aid of execution. It seems to us rather that the application, contemplated by that article of the Limitation Act, is an application to obtain some order of the Court in furtherance of the execution of the decree. The appearance of the pleader cannot be regarded as any such application. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Hemant Kumari Devi Vs. Surya Kant Acharya Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal706
Tottenham and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal against a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the respondent as zamindar against the appellant as holder of a tenure in her zamindari.2. The plaintiff', respondent, claimed the whole of the estate as widow of the late Raja Jotindro Narain Roy. and to have come into possession upon the death of Rani Sarat Sundari Devi, who was the executrix under the will of the late Raja. It is not quite clear upon the pleadings on what date the plaintiff succeeded to possession, but it must have been either at the extreme end of the year 1292 or sometime in 1293.3. The Court below over-ruling several objections, more or less technical, taken by the defendant, gave the plaintiff a decree.4. The same objections have been urged in the appeal before us; and we are forced to the conclusion, we must say somewhat unwillingly, that as to one of these objections, technical as it is, the appellant is entitled to succeed. That objection is that when this suit wa...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmony Singh Deo Vs. Biressur Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal744
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. The decree in this suit was passed on the 7th August 1875. It was kept alive from that time until the 26th July 1887. On that date, an application for a certificate was made to the Deputy Collector of Manbhoom, the Court by which the decree was passed, to allow execution to be taken out in the Civil Court at Burdwan. The application, no doubt, was made in the form prescribed in Section 235, but the last column, Clause (i), was necessarily vague in respect of the attachment of particular properties. The decree was sent for execution to Burdwan by a proceeding dated 13th April 1888, and was received on the 4th May following. Execution has been refused under Section 230 of the Code, it being found that more than twelve years have elapsed from the date of the decree, and that this matter fell within that section, inasmuch as a previous application had been made to execute the decree under Section 230, and had been granted. It is contended in second appeal by Mr. Woo...
Tag this Judgment!Mackenzie Lyall and Co. Vs. Chamroo Singh and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal703
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The question in this case is, whether there was any contract between the parties.2. The plaintiffs in this case are auctioneers carrying on business in this city, and the defendants are merchants, and on some day the plaintiffs published an advertisement of the goods they had to sell, and they also published the conditions of sale. On the occasion of this sale, an agent of the defendants attended the sale and bid for certain lots and the auctioneer who held the sale did not knock down the lots, but intimated to the bidder that his bid was accepted kutcha-pncca.3. Now, the first thing that occurs to one to do is to look at the conditions of sale to ascertain whether there are any conditions which deal with an intimation of this kind, and we find that there are not- The plaintiffs say that by the custom of the sale room, an intimation of this kind is an intimation that the goods were put up by them for sale, subject to a reference to the owners of the goods if, ...
Tag this Judgment!Joykristo Shaha and ors. Vs. India General Steam Navigation Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1889
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal40
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This was a suit which was brought by the plaintiffs against the India General Steam Navigation Company to recover the value of goods which were entrusted by the plaintiffs to them for carriage. The defendants are carriers of goods between Calcutta and various parts of the country by means of flats towed by steamers, which proceed up the rivers in the country. The plaintiffs are merchants carrying on business at Calcutta and at Dacca, and the business to a great extent consists in the purchase of goods in the Calcutta market and sending them up from Calcutta to Dacca by means of these flats for sate in their shop there.2. The owner of the plaintiff's' business is a person of the name of Joy Kristo Shaha, and he has two sons who assist him in his business, one of them being at Dacca and the other at Calcutta, and it is the business of the man at Calcutta to purchase goods and forward them to his brother at Dacca, whose business is to sell them there.3. The defen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »