Kolkata Court February 1890 Judgments
Asgar Ali Vs. Troilokya Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal632
O'Kinealy, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs obtained a decree against the defendants on the 6th September 1876, and under Section 230 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is said that an application to execute it would have been barred if made after the 6th September 1888. The judgment-creditor applied for execution on the 6th July 1888. He made his application in the usual form, and in the last paragraph he prayed that certain immoveable properties (as per list) belonging to the judgment-debtor might be sold. As a matter of fact no list was filed, nor was its absence reported to the District Judge. On the 13th July the Judge directed that the application should be amended on another point, and on the '25th July the Court directed that a further and different defect should be set right. On the 11th September the decree-holder filed a list of the immoveable properties, and the Judge in the Court below who tried this case held that although this list was not ordered by the Court yet the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madhub Roy Vs. Jaod Ali Sircar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal390
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The question which has been referred to the Full Bench in these rules is: 'Is an attachment of a tenure or holding, in execution of a decree obtained by a fractional co-sharer for arrears of the rent of his separate share, such an attachment as is contemplated by Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act?'2. In our opinion the answer to that question must be in the negative. Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act gives certain privileges to persons who have taken proceedings under that Act for the purpose of recovering their rents; and Section 188 says that, where several persons are joint landlords, and when anything under this Act is authorised to be done, they must all join in doing it. That shows, in our opinion, that where landlords are seeking to take the benefit of this Act, they must act in concert; and where one of several co-sharers in a zemindari thinks fit to pursue his remedies to recover his share of the rent, he must pursue them under the ordinary la...
Tag this Judgment!Manofi Pattuk Vs. NaraIn Mahton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal489
Pigot, J.1. In this case we agree with the decision come to by Mr. Justice Mitter, and Mr. Justice Macpherson, and referred to in the order of reference; and in answer to the question put to this Bench, we think that the words 'amount of rent annually payable by a tenant' occurring in Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act include the case of rent payable by a tenant to one of the co-sharer landlords who collects his rent separately....
Tag this Judgment!Rujjub Ali Chopedar Vs. Chundi Churn Bhadra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal544
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Prinsep, Pigot, O'Kinealy and Ghose, JJ.1. The question referred for the decision of the Full Bench is, 'when the person claiming a right of pre-emption bus performed the talab-i-mawasibat in the presence of witnesses, but not in the presence either of the seller or of the purchaser, or on the premises, is it necessary, when performing the talab-i-ishad, that he should declare that he has made the talab-i-mawasibat, and at the same time should invoke witnesses to attest it? '2. According to Mahomedan law, if the claimant neglects to perform the legal forms necessary to be observed in asserting the right of pre-emption, his claim is null and void. The ordinary forms are as follows: He must make an immediate claim or talab-i-mawasibat and subsequently an affirmation with witnesses called the talab-i-ishad. The latter consists in the party going upon the lands the right of pre-emption to which he claims, or to the seller or purchaser, and saying that he is a claim...
Tag this Judgment!Asirun Bibi Vs. Sliarip Mondul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal488
Prinsep, J.1. Upon reconsideration of this matter, I think that the view taken by the Division Bench which referred this case is correct. The plaintiff will therefore be entitled to a decree, the decree of the first Court being restored with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Tincowrie Dawn Vs. Debendro Nath Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal491
Wilson, J.1. The point raised in this case is a short one. It arises out of a reference to the Registrar, of a very usual kind, to enquire who were entitled to take a share of the sale proceeds of property attached in execution, and that depends upon what valid attachments upon the property were in force or had been ordered.2. In the course of that reference it became necessary to determine whether Mr. Gasper's client, who is one of the attaching creditors, is entitled to share in the proceeds of sale. The dates, which are important, are the following: - The claimant obtained his decree on the 29th of July 1884. The decree was transmitted to this Court for execution, and on the 23rd of August he applied for execution. On the 26th of that month the property was attached. On the 13th June 1885 an order was made for payment out to the creditor of what had been realised, towards satisfaction of his claim, and on the 8th August 1885 payment was actually made. The next step was an applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Lall Datta Vs. Goribullah Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal542
Tottenham and Ali, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction in this case. Clearly neither Article 4 nor Article 11 of the Schedule excludes it, nor does Article 35....
Tag this Judgment!iswari Pershad NaraIn Sahi, Lunatic Represented by His Mother, Guardia ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal470
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. The first question argued before us in his case is whether the plaintiff's claim for the two sums of Rs. 500 each, which became due, one on the 13th Cheyt 1291 Fusli, and the other on the 29th Joisto 1291, is barred by limitation. The time from which limitation would run under the provisions of the Rent Law was the last day of Joisto 1291 Fusli, that is, the 8th of June 1884. The suit was brought on the 2nd of April 1888, that is to say, more than three years and less than six years after the period of limitation began to run. The contention before us is that, in the first place, the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act do not apply to this case; and secondly that, if they do apply, the fact that the rent is payable under a registered lease makes the period of limitation six years. As regards the first question, it is quite clear that the defendants would come within the definition of the world 'tenure-holder' contained in Section 5 of the Bengal Tenancy A...
Tag this Judgment!Mohceb Ali Alias Dummur and anr. Vs. Ameer Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal539
Ghose and Beverley, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application made under Section 158 of the Bengal Tenancy Act by two out of four joint landlords, and the application has been rejected by both the lower Courts as being barred by Section 188 of the same Act. There is no question whatever that upon the allegations of the parties the landlords in this case are joint; they are undivided co-sharers apparently collecting the rents jointly. Now Section 188 of the Act runs as follows: 'Where two or more persons are joint landlords, anything which the landlord is under this Act required or authorized to do must be done either by both or all those persons acting together, or by an agent authorized to act on behalf of both or all of them.' An application by a landlord under Section 158 is a thing which the landlord is authorized to do under the Bengal Tenancy Act and under that Act alone; there is no other law that authorizes him to make such an application to the Court. It follows that when...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmoni Chuckerbutti and ors. Vs. Bykant Nath Bera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal467
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is a matter under Chapter XI of the Bengal Tenancy Act in which the proprietor of certain bromattar lands sought to obtain from the revenue officer a record that the lands were his private lands.2. The case in the lower Court was presented to the District Judge in appeal as coming within Section 120, Sub-section 1 (b), and was so dealt with. The District Judge found that no village usage was established, and he accordingly affirmed the order of the Deputy Collector rejecting the petitioners' application. In the appeal before us, it has been contended that the real character of the case has been misunderstood, and that the case should have been dealt with under Sub-section (2). Now under that sub-section, the law allows three matters to be taken into consideration in determining whether the land should be recorded as the proprietor's private land. The first is local custom; the second is whether the land was, before the 2nd day of March 1883, specificall...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›