Kolkata Court June 1890 Judgments
Huri Dayol Singh Sarmana and ors. Vs. Grish Chunder Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal912
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This was a suit for money due on a bond. The plaintiffs alleged that money lent really belonged to them, but the bond was taken in the name of their mother: and they further alleged that they were the only heirs to their mother. The defendants denied having borrowed any money on the bond, and they also urged that as the bond, on the face of it, showed that the money belonged to the plaintiffs' mother, and as she left a daughter who had male issue, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the money, and that their claim was further untenable by reason of their not having obtained any certificate under Act XXVII of 1860.2. The first Court found that the plaintiffs' allegations were proved, and it gave the plaintiffs a decree; but the Lower Appellate Court, whilst affirming the first Court's finding that the loan was proved, held that the money was not shown to have belonged to the plaintiff's; and as the plaintiffs had a sister who died in 1292, leaving mala iss...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Dey and anr. Vs. Ramdhan Bhadra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal927
Ghose, J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of certain lands under a jote right. The plaintiff's allegation is that he acquired a right of. occupancy in the lands by holding as a tenant for a long time, but that the defendants wrongfully dispossessed him therefrom on the 28th of Assin 1291, corresponding to the 13th October 1884; and the plaint asks that possession may be awarded to the plaintiffs by establishing his jote right. The defendants, who are the landlords, deny the plaintiff's right, and set up the plea of limitation under Article III, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit, being of opinion that the plaintiff has an occupancy right in the lands in suit, and that the defendants were not justified in evicting him. They have also held that the limitatiqp applicable to the suit is not two years under Article 3 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, but 12 years under the Indian Limitation Act of 1877, there being a dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Prosad Surma Bardeuri and ors. Vs. Kali Kanta Surma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal907
Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiffs state that they are the representatives of one of five Brahmins, who were brought from Kunoj by an ancient Hindu monarch to worship in the temple of Kamakhya in Kamrup, and that down to the present time the Dalois or managers of the temple have been always elected from among the representatives of the five Brahmins. They say that there are some smaller temples subordinate to the main temple in which the worship is conducted by other Brahmins, and that there are also a number of Sudras employed about all the temples. The defendants are the Brahmins employed about the temples other than those who are descendants of the five imported persons and the Sudras. The family of one of the five Brahmins is become extinct, that of another is represented by the plaintiffs; but descendants 'of the remaining three persons who are admitted to be living, and who are said to claim the same rights as those claimed by the plaintiffs, are no parties to this action. It is alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Dey Vs. Mokhoda Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal700
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Prinsep, Pigot, and O'Kinealy, JJ.1. This was a suit brought on a mortgage of 139 bighas of land forming part of mouzah Bouridanga Gopinathpur. It was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Biahenpur, and by consent it was decreed that the debtor should pay the mortgaged debt by the end of Choit 1293, and, in default, that the mortgaged property should be sold. Execution was taken out in 1887, and on the debtor paying Rs. 60 the execution proceedings were struck off. Execution was again sued out in 1888, when the property was sold and purchased on the 21st May by the decree-holder for Rs. 50. It has been found by both Courts that at the time the suit was brought, and when the order for sale was passed, the mortgaged property was wholly within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Bankura,. and not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Munsif of Bishenpur, who executed the decree.2. Both Courts have refused to confirm the sale; and the Division Bench of this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Punchanun Bundopadhya, Minor by His Mother and Guardian Kamini Debi Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal711
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. My answer to the question put to the Full Bench is, that an objection taken by one who has become the representative of the original judgment-debtor in the course of the execution of a decree to the effect that the property attached in satisfaction thereof is his own private property and not held by him as such representative, is a matter cognizable only under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and not the proper subject-matter of a separate suit by a party against whom an adverse order may have been passed under Sections 280 and 281, as provided by Section 283.2. Section 234 provides that when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully executed, the decree-holder may apply to execute it against the legal representative of the deceased, and the section goes on to limit the liability of the legal representative to assets of the deceased which have come to his bands, and gives the Court power to compel him to produce accounts, so that under...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaya Lall Bhaia Gyawal Vs. Poona Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1890
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal730
Pigot and Gordon, JJ.1. We think the appeal must be allowed and the order set aside. The jurisdiction under the insolvency sections of the Civil Procedure Code is no doubt one most difficult to administer satisfactorily, but it still is competent for the Court so to exercise its powers as to secure to the creditors a better chance of recovering something from the insolvent-debtor than we think has been, under the circumstances of this case, allowed. We are dissatisfied with the course taken by the Lower Court in two respects. We do not think that sufficiently active means of searching into the insolvent's affairs was afforded by the Court to the appellant, who for some mysterious reason is called the objector, and we think that both in respect of the rules, an order for the production of which he asked for, and as to the issue of summons to examine witnesses, and summons to examine the books relating to the religious business carried on by the insolvent and his family, the Court ought ...
Tag this Judgment!Birjmohun Lal and ors. Vs. Rudra Perkash Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal944
Rampini, J.1. The plaintiffs sue the defendant for the sum of Rs. 5,800 due as principal and for the sum of Rs. 2,081 due as interest on ten rokas or promissory notes, nine of which were executed by the defendant, and one of which was executed by one Sital Prosad Misser, the am-mukhtar or general agent of the defendant, between the 22nd Aughran and 26th Falgoon 1293 Fusli, i.e., the 14th December 1885 and 16th March 1886.2. The answer of the defendant is (1) that he was a minor at the time of the execution of these rokas; (2) that he signed the rokas on blank sheets of paper, which he handed over to Sital Prosad, and that he himself received only Rs. 2,000 out of the Rs. 5,800 alleged to have been paid to him on them; (3) that the plaintiffs' claim on five of these rokas is barred by limitation; and (4) that Sital Prosad had no authority from him to borrow money or pay interest on his behalf.3. The lower Court has found all these pleas in favour of the defendant, and the plaintiffs now...
Tag this Judgment!Mon Mohun Sirkar and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal969
Ameer Ali, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs' suit is barred as res judicata. The plaintiffs had on the 28th March 1884 brought a suit against the present defendants to recover possession of certain lands, and in the plaint had claimed mesne profits from the day of dispossession up to the date of restoration of possession. That suit, was dismissed by the first Court, but was eventually decreed by the High Court in favour of the plaintiffs with mesne profits for three years preceding the date of suit. No mention was, however, made regarding the subsequent mesne profits. The plaintiffs have accordingly instituted the present suit for the mesne profits from the 28th of March 1884 to the date of recovery of possession, and the defendants contend that it is barred under the provisions of explanation III to Section 13 of the Code, and the lower Courts, giving effect to this contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Prosad Singh Vs. Bal Kowar Koeri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal727
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This was a second appeal which arose out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover a balance of rent at the rate of Rs. 22-2 per annum. The defendant by his pleader, on the settlement of issues, stated that he was tenant to the plaintiff of the land in question at a rental of Be. 18-10-6 and the Munsif fixed as the first issue for trial-Is the defendant's rental Rs. 22-2 as alleged by the plaintiff, or Rs. 18-10-6 as alleged by the defendant? And the questions which arise in the second appeal and in this reference are upon that issue. Both the Munsif and the District Judge, before whom the case came on appeal in the first instance, have found upon this issue that the defendant's rental is Rs. 18-10-6. The case has been brought before the High Court on second appeal, and the plaintiff contends,-first, that there was no evidence on which the Munsif and the District Judge could come to such a finding; second, that even if there was some evidence, the Judge's ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghoobuns Sahoy Vs. Kokil Singh Alias Gopal Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1890
Reported in: (1890)ILR17Cal272
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. The question for determination is whether a Collector, acting under Sections 69 and 70 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, is a Court within the meaning of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. It arises in this way. (Their Lordships set out the facts above mentioned and continued)-It is contended in showing cause that the order is right, that the Collector acting under the sections referred to is a' Court' within the meaning of Section 195 of the Procedure Code, and that sanction for the prosecution is necessary.3. The word 'Court' is not denned in the Criminal Procedure Code, and it certainly has a wider meaning than a Court of Justice as defined in the Penal Code. Having regard to the obvious purpose for which Section 195 was enacted, we think that the widest possible meaning should be given to the word 'Court' as therein mentioned, and that it would include a tribunal empowered to deal with a particular matter and authorised to receive evidence bearing o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›