Kolkata Court July 1889 Judgments

Dino Nath Mohunto Vs. Chundi Koch

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.349

Banerjee, J.1. The suit oat of which this second appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession of seven bights ten kitas of land upon a title by inheritance. The defence was, amongst other things not necessary to consider now, a denial of the plaintiff's title. The first Court held that the property in dispute belonged to one Hasiram and that the plaintiff was Hasiram's father's maternal grandfather's great-great-grandson, and it held that the plaintiff was entitled to the land as heir of Hasiram, and, overruling the other objections urged on behalf of the defendant, it gave the plaintiff a decree. The defendant in his appeal to the District Judge repeated the objection urged in the first Court that the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed by inheritance, but the lower Appellate Court without giving any definite reason for its decision held that as the relationship of Chundi Koch, the plaintiff, with Hasiram was established, the plaintiff was entitled to ...

Aslu Vs. the Queen-empress

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal779

Trevelyan and Banerjee, JJ.This rule must be made absolute. The question raised in this case is whether an Appellate Court affirming a conviction and sentence has power, under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to order the appellant to execute a bond for keeping the peace. In the Court below the learned Magistrate seems to have thought that he had power to pass such an order under that section, upon the authority of a Full Bench ruling in the case of Empress v. Kanta, Prosad I.L.R. 4 All. 212. But that was a case under the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 489, and that section provided that if ' the Court or Magistrate by which, or by whom, a person is convicted, or the Court or Magistrate by which or by hom, the final sentence or order in the case is passed is of opinion that it is just and necessary to require such person to give a personal recognizance for keeping the peace, such Court or Magistrate may direct the taking of a bond to keep the peace.' Now, t...

Ally Mirza Bahadur Vs. Rai Jogendra NaraIn Roy and anr.

Court: Kolkata

1. The plaintiff, as zemindar, granted a patni of certain property to the defendant No. 1 who, in turn, has granted a lease for lo years of certain rights to defendant No. 2. The plaintiff now sues for a declaration that the lease was invalid and contrary to the terms of the patni pattah granted to defendant No. 1. He next asks for a declaration that under the patni lease granted to defendant No. 1, he has no right to hold, enjoy, open or work any mine or quarry or dig and cut away any mineral substances, etc. Thirdly, he asks for a declaratory decree that such rights are vested only in the plaintiff, and, lastly, he asks for compensation and for an injunction.2. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit holding that these rights were conferred on defendant No. 1 under the patni lease and that, therefore, the sublease granted to defendant No. 2, was a valid instrument.3. The question raised in this appeal, therefore, is what are the rights granted to defendant No. 1 by the patni lea...

Hari Mohun Mullick Alias Mothura Mohun Mullick Vs. Matra Mondal and an ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal155

Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover possession of a jala with wasilat. It was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye, being valued at Rs. 1,260. The plaintiff claimed this jala as appertaining to his putni taluk Madhupore, and alleged that the name of the jala was Daur Patherghata.2. The defendants alleged that this jala did not belong to the plaintiff's putni, but belonged to a property called Imamgunj, belonging to the defendant No. 2, the Nawab Nazim of Bengal. They disputed the value of the property in suit, alleging that it was below Rs. 1,000, and therefore contended that the suit was cognizable by the Munsif's Court and not by the Court of the Subordinate Judge.3. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the property was worth more than Rs. 1,000, and he proceeded to try the case on the merits.4. Before the issues were framed it seems that the examination of the parties or their pleaders took place, and the plaintiff substituted for his origi...

Dwarka Nath Mitter (as Shebait of the Idol Radharaman JIn and Also for ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal160

Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. We think that the judgment of the District Judge is correct, and that this appeal must be dismissed.2. The plaintiffs, as some of a body of persons entitled to a balance of arrears of rent, have brought this suit making their co-sharers defendants. They state that they have made them defendants because they are residents of a distant place; from which it may be inferred that they would have had some difficulty in obtaining their consent; and, no doubt, this is true, because it would seem that the suit has been brought on the very last day of the period prescribed by the law of limitation.3. An objection as to the form of the suit was, as stated by the District Judge, pressed from the very first by the defendants. We have no doubt that it is only when the plaintiffs can show that those entitled to join with them have refused to join or have otherwise acted prejudicially to their interests, that they are entitled to sue alone and to make the reluctant or refusing ...

Girija Nath Roy Bahadur Vs. Patani Bibee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal263

Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, suing for arrears of rent, and having been a minor at the time when one portion of the arrears accrued due, is entitled to the benefit of Section 7 of the Limitation Act; and to bring his suit to recover those arrears after the period prescribed by the law for such suits in general.2. The lower Court has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of Section 7. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that Section 7 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to suits for rent under Bengal Act VIII of 1869, under which this suit was brought, because that Act provides a special period of limitation for suits brought to recover arrears of rent, and the schedule to the Limitation Act provides no period for such suits. Section 7 of that Act allows a minor such further time after he has attained his majority as would otherwise have been allowed from the time prescribed for such suit in the third colu...

Chowdhry Paroosh Ram Das and anr. Vs. Kali Puddo Banerjee and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal53

Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. The decree which is now under execution is a very old decree, having been passed in December 1851. It is unnecessary to detail all the proceedings taken in execution except those of somewhat recent date. It is sufficient to say that a share of the property belonging to the appellant, against which execution is sought was, on the 7th September 1859, sold to his ancestor. Whether the property was then under attachment is not clear; but we learn that, in the year 1860, the property was, under Section 243, Act VIII of 1859, placed in the hands of a Receiver, who was directed to pay the malikana allowance to the several sharers in that property except that the malikana due to the debtors was to be paid into Court for the decree-holder. We must take it that the share of those debtors was under attachment in execution of this decree, and that the intervention of the Receiver was for the benefit of the debtors and to avert the sale which would ordinarily have followed t...

Uma Churn Dutt and ors. Vs. Basharutulla

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal794

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit which has been brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, claiming various reliefs, and, among other things, the plaintiff claims to set aside the sale of certain property as being fraudulent, and in addition to that, he claims to recover possession of that property from the defendants, and he claims any other relief to which he may be found entitled. The Judge has decreed the suit, and the appeal has been preferred to this Court, really on the ground that such a suit will not lie at all by reason of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts of the case are that the present plaintiff had a decree passed against him for a sum of money due to certain persons, some of whom were his landlords, or at all events his judgment-creditors. He did not pay that money, and his property was attached and was proclaimed for sale by reason of the plaintiff's failure to pay the sum decreed, and, according to the proclamation, the sales, amo...

ScheIn Vs. the Queen-empress

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal799

Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. The first question which was raised before us was one raised by the learned Counsel for the prosecution. He contended that no appeal lies in this case. This is an appeal from the decision of the Presidency Magistrate inflicting a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200, and, in default of payment of the fine, three months' simple imprisonment.2. The question depends on the construction of Section 411 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which says: 'Any person convicted on a trial held by a Presidency Magistrate, may appeal to the High Court, if the Magistrate has sentenced him to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months or to fine exceeding two hundred rupees.'3. In this case the Magistrate has neither sentenced the appellant to imprisonment exceeding six months nor has he sentenced him to a fine exceeding two hundred rupees. But it is contended by the pleader for the appellant that the combination of the sentences of imprisonme...

Lal Mohun Chowdhuri Vs. Nunu Mohamed Talukdar, Auction-purchaser and o ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal153

Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This is an order of the Munsif declining to set aside a sale on the alleged ground of irregularity in publishing and conducting it, and on the allegation that, in consequence of such irregularity, the property was sold for an inadequate price.2. The Court below has found that there was no irregularity; and, therefore, although the price really was inadequate, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief; and in that decision we agree. The burden of proving the irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale lies on the judgment-debtor, and he must prove that no proclamation was duly published. The evidence on this point is as unsatisfactory as could be imagined, and, as the learned Pleader for the appellant pointed out, is of the most ordinary character, which never carries any weight. But it has also been brought to our notice that the petitioner more than once obtained the adjournment of the sale on the understanding that he would have no objection on th...