Kolkata Court September 1890 Judgments
Dungaram Marwary Vs. Rajkishore Deo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal133
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Deputy Commissioner of the Sonthal Pergunnahs, reversing an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Deoghur for the issue of a warrant of arrest against the respondent, judgment-debtor, in execution of a decree against him.2. The learned Deputy Commissioner has held that, in accordance with a Government notification dated the 19th August 1867, the Code of Civil Procedure obtains in the Sonthal Pergunnahs, subject to certain qualifications one of which is, that there shall be no imprisonment in execution of a decree; and in support of this view he refers to a decision of this Court in the case of Sorbojit Roy v. Gonesh Prosad Misser I.L.R. 10 Cal. 761.3. The value of the suit; which resulted in the decree now sought to be executed was admittedly over a thousand rupees.4. It is con tended on behalf of the appellant, decree-holder, that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner is wrong, because the Government notification...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Churn Sing and ors. Vs. Dhaturi Sing and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal146
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. This appeal is from a decree of the Deputy Commissioner of the Sonthal Pergunnahs.2. The suit was brought in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer of Godda (vested with the powers of a Sub-Judge) by the present appellants for possession of an 8 annas share of mouzah Dumria Kalun, and the avoidance of a mokurari pottah and a kobala, under the former of which the first defendant had held the lands in suit from the year 1857, until he, on the 29th January 1881, sold his rights therein by the kobala to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants.3. Mouzah Dumria formerly belonged to one Raja Ajit Baram, who died many years ago without male issue. He had been twice married, and both his wives survived him. By his elder wife he had two daughters--Mussammut Parbutti and Mussammut Padmabutti. The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are the sons, and the 3rd and 4th plaintiffs the grandsons through a deceased son, of Mussammut Parbutti. The 5th, 6th, and 7th plaintiffs are grandsons also thro...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Mujaffar HosseIn and anr. Vs. Kishory Mohun Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal188
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.1. Amirunnessa, though made a defendant, has made no defence. Her son Abdul Hye, another defendant, has set up his own right as one of the heirs of his brother Wahed Ali, to whom he states his father Abdul Ali made a gift of the properties in suit. This part of the case it will be unnecessary to consider as no question of Abdul Hye's right has been raised before us.2. The lower Court has given the plaintiffs a decree, holding that the conveyances to Amirunnessa set up by the Roys were not real but benami; that the properties in dispute continued in Abdul Ali's possession, and at his death formed portion of his estate up to the date of the plaintiffs' purchase, and that consequently they passed to the plaintiffs.3. Against that decree the Roys have preferred this appeal, and the points urged on their behalf are:First, that the plaintiffs have acquired no title by their purchase at the execution sale, as that sale was invalid by reason of there having been no att...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanmull Vs. Ram Chunder Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1890
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal265
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. These facts, in my opinion, show beyond all question that the defendant was one of the four younger sons of Sumbo Nath, whose births were registered, and consequently that he must have been a minor when he signed the deed. But besides all this the plaint in the suit of 1879 was put in; that plaint was signed by Nursing Chunder Bose, the maternal grandfather of the defendant, a person who is since dead, and it is contended on behalf of the defendant that statements in it, as to the order in which Sumbo Nath's sons were born, and as to the dates of their births, are evidence under Section 32, Sub-section (5) of the Evidence Act, and that, if so, they are conclusive. It was contended on the part of the plaintiff on the authority of the English cases that, as the question at issue in this case did not relate to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption, the section did not apply, and the statements were excluded by the ordinary rules of evi...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath Gupto Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal91
Pigot, J.1. The present suit came on for hearing before Mr. Justice WILSON, who dismissed it, on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 357 of the Municipal Act. He said: 'The question is whether on the plaintiff's own evidence it is shown that any right to sue accrued within three months before the 15th March, on which date the present suit was brought. I think it is not so shown.'2. The suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation alone: there was no finding on the other issues in the case.3. The plaintiff appeals against the decree of the Original Court. Section 357 is as follows: 'No suit shall be brought against the Commissioners or any of their officers or any person acting under their direction for anything done under this Act until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office of the Commissioners, or at the place of abode of such person, stating the cause of suit and the name and place of abode of the intending plai...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Jewan Kairi Mahton and ors. Vs. Dhora Kairi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1890
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal101
Pigot and Gordon, JJ.1. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the defendant appellant can be ejected without notice to quit.2. At first sight we were disposed to hold that in accordance with the principles of English law, which have been followed in various decisions of this Court, the lower Courts were right in holding that the defendant by setting up previous to suit a title to the land adverse to that of the plaintiffs, his landlords, forfeited all his rights as a tenant as against the plaintiffs, and was therefore liable to be treated by them as a trespasser, and as such to be evicted without notice. But in a recent decision under the Bengal Tenancy Act it has been held [Debiruddi v. Abdur Rahim I.L.R. 17 Cal. 196] that under that Act 'in all cases to which it applies, there can no longer be any eviction on the ground of forfeiture incurred by denying the title of the Landlord.' We of course follow this decision, and as it has been found by the Lower Appellate Co...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Dasi Vs. Monindra Nath Mookerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal125
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J. and Rampini, J.1. The plaintiff has brought this suit to set aside the sale of a taluk of hers, which was sold on the 29th November 1886 for arrears of road cess, amounting to Rs. 2-14, and which taluk was purchased by the defendant. She alleges that she received no notice of the filing of the certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act in the office of the Collector, as required by Section 10, Bengal Act VII of 1880; that the proclamation of sale was not duly made; that the estate was in consequence sold for an inadequate price; and that the sale was confirmed before the expiry of 60 days from the date of sale, as required by Section 27, Act XI of 1859. The defendant traverses all these allegations, but the Subordinate Judge has found them to have been substantiated by the plaintiff. He has accordingly given her a decree, setting aside the sale, and has awarded her mesne profits, less a sum of Rs. 165-2, proved to have been paid by the defendant as c...
Tag this Judgment!Natabar Parue and ors. Vs. Kubir Parue and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal80
O'Kinealy and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This is a question on a reference made by the Munsif of Bongong, as to whether Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act applies to a case now before him. The facts as found by him, and on which the reference is based, are as follows:Plaintiffs and defendants had jointly obtained the power to fish on another man's land, that is to say, they obtained a benefit out of another man's land; but had no interest in the soil itself. Subsequently one of the defendants bought the Gyanti tenure on which this jalkar lies; and he prevented his co-sharers from fishing at certain period of the year, when the khal became full. The Munsif is of opinion that such a suit does not come within the purview of Section 9, Act I of 1877, and in that opinion we concur. It is clear that the plaintiffs have no right to the land, nor are they in possession of the land; and all that can be said in their favour is that for a certain part of the year they had power or license to fish. A disp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›