Kolkata Court December 1891 Judgments
Jotindro Nath Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Dwarka Nath Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1891
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal111
Pigot and Macpherson, JJ.1. We do not think it necessary to call upon the learned pleader for the respondent in this case. We think the judgment of the learned District Judge respondent in this case. We think the judgment of the learned District Judge contentions that Section 273 was introduced into the Indian Code for the purpose of showing in what manner the attachment of decrees under the Code shall be made available on behalf of the attaching person This is one of the many cases in which it is much better in following previous decisions simply to say that we follow them instead of discussing them or amplifying language which is already sufficiently complete and satisfactory Therefore we say no more than that we agree with the learned District Judge and follow he decisions on which he has rested his judgment; but we must say, further, that we are wholly unable to understand in what manner the sale of this decree on the application of the Collector could be justified in law. It is tr...
Tag this Judgment!Lukhun Chunder Ash Vs. Khoda Buksh Mondul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal272
Banerjee, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal which is from an order of the District Judge rejecting an appeal on the ground of the memorandum of appeal not bearing the proper Court-fee stamp, is, whether the learned Judge was right in holding that the appellant was bound to pay the whole amount of Court-fee demanded, or whether the memorandum of appeal, as presented, bore the proper Court-fee stamp.2. The facts upon which this question arises are shortly these. The suit was one for arrears of rent. The defendant admitted the claim, but prayed that the amount be made payable by three instalments. The First Court allowed the defendant's prayer, and gave a decree for the sum of Rs. 1,285-2-7 1/2 gs., and costs, Rs. 156, amounting in all to Rs. 1,441-2-7 1/2 gs., to be paid by three equal instalments, payable, respectively, in Choitro 1297, Assin 1298, and Choitro 1298, interest being charged on the instalments, if not paid on due date, at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum. The d...
Tag this Judgment!Hassan Ali Vs. Chutterput Singh Dugarh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal742
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit brought by the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad to recover possession of certain property, on the ground that it was a part of the State property of the Nizamut of Murshidabad which was wrongfully in the possession of the defendants under an alienation from the last Nawab Nazim.2. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. The District Judge reversed his decision, and has dismissed the suit on the ground that the only person who could bring such a suit was the Secretary of State, that the title was in the Secretary of State, as representing the Government of India, and that no one could bring the suit but that person.3. The matter has been argued before us by Mr. Evans, for the plaintiff and by Dr. Rash Behari Ghose for the defendants, and Mr. Evans, on this point which I have mentioned, relies upon the letter of the Agent to the Governor-General, which is referred to in the judgment of the District Judge.4. That was a letter in which the Agent c...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Ram Singh Vs. Sheo Pershad Bhagut
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal286
Banerjee, J.1. The only question raised in this case is whether a regular suit would lie for setting aside an order such as is contemplated by the proviso to Section 272 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that is, an order determining any question of title or priority as between the decree-holder and any other person in respect of money in deposit in a Court of Justice.2. It is contended for the appellant that no such suit would lie, as there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which says that an order of this kind is liable to be questioned by a regular suit, and that the intention of Section 272 is to make-the Court, in whose custody the money or property in dispute is, the only Court competent to determine the question.3. We do not think this contention is sound. Section 272 is one of a group of sections commencing with Section 272 and ending with Section 285; and all that the proviso to Section 272 intends, when declaring that the Court in which the property or money is dep...
Tag this Judgment!Dhunput Singh Vs. Saraswati MisraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal267
Tottenham and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit.2. The suit was to recover arrears of patni rent for the years 1294, 1295, and part of 1296. It seems that the defendants, the patnidars, were out of possession for a part of that period. The.patni was sold under the Regulation at the instance of the plaintiff in the month of Jeyt 1294, and the plaintiff himself became the purchaser. That sale was set aside in the month of Pous 1295; and we are told that the reason why the sale was reversed was that the proceedings under the Regulation were taken not against actual living patnidars, but against their predecessor who was then dead. The plaintiff appears to have given notice to the defendants that they were at liberty to resume possession shortly after the reversal of the sale; and it appears that the plaintiff while in possession did collect some portion of the rent of each year.3. The issues in the case were settled on the 8th February 1889, and the first issu...
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Nath Misser and anr. Vs. Protap Chandra Misser and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal275
Tottenham and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under Section 14 of Act XX of 1863 for the removal of the present shebaits of a certain religious endowment.2. The plaintiffs allege in their plaint that the idol Raghunath Jeo had certain debottar property endowed for its worship and for the feeding of guests; that the present shebaits had no exclusive right of their own in the said property; that all Hindus had a common right of worshipping the idol; that the present shebaits had been mismanaging the debottar property and misappropriating its profits; that the plaintiff's as persons interested in the worship, having obtained the permission of the District Judge under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863, were entitled to maintain this suit; and that they brought this suit for the purpose of having the present shebaits removed from office.3. The defendant No. 2, who is the appellant before us, amongst other objections not necessary now to consider, urged that the endowment...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. A.M. Jacob
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal113
Wilson, J.1. The prosecutor in this case, the Nizam of Hyderabad, was examined and cross-examined under a commission issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, during an enquiry before him, under the terms of Section 503 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Prima facie upon that section alone the deposition given under that commission would be capable of use only before the tribunal which issued the commission. But it has been suggested that by virtue of Section 507 it followed that the evidence taken under that commission by the Magistrate is admissible in this Court on the present trial. It is contended that the words may, subject to all just exceptions, be read in evidence in the case' apply not only to the enquiry going on before the Magistrate, but also to the subsequent trial before this Court. I think that is not so for several reasons. The sections must be construed distributively. The rational construction of the word 'case' in Section 507 is that the evidence is to be used during ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›