Kolkata Court March 1891 Judgments
Surnomoyi Debia Vs. Grish Chunder Moitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal363
Petheram C.J., Pigot, O'Kinealy, Macpherson and Ghose, JJ.1. It appears that a putni was sold on the 2nd Aughran 1293,. under the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819, the notices of sale having been published on the 15th Kartick. And the question that has been referred to us is whether the publication of notices relating to an impending putni sale, made on the 15th Kartick, on a date later than that prescribed by law, is not a sufficient ground for setting aside a sale subsequently held, and whether under the terms of Section 14 this was a sufficient plea for a reversal of that sale.'2. The sale took place under Clause 3 of Section 8 of Regulation VIII of 1819, which runs as follows:On the 1st day of Kartick, in the middle of the year, the zemindar shall be at liberty to present a similar petition, with a statement of any balances that may be due on account of the rent of the current year up to the end of the month of Assin, and to cause similar publication to be made of a sale of th...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendro Nath Mullick Vs. Mathura Mahun Parhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal368
Petheram C.J., Pigot, O'Kinealy, Macpherson and Ghose, JJ.1. The circumstances which have given rise to this reference are as follows:Plaintiff sued the defendants under Act X of 1859 for arrears of rent due on account of the years 1292, 1293, and 1294 of the Amli era. It is admitted that the arrears for 1292 Amli have become barred, unless plaintiff can be allowed the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the question which has been referred to us for decision is:Whether the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act XV of 1877, are applicable to a suit for arrears of rent under Act X of 1859.2. Before the passing of Act X of 1859, summary suits for rent were heard and decided by the ordinary tribunals. That enactment made a complete change. The substantive law was modified, and new procedure was introduced, and special tribunals were established to carry out the provisions of the new law. Since that time Act X of 1859 has always been considered to be a Code complete in...
Tag this Judgment!Gomes Vs. Gomes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal443
Wilson, J.1. This was a divorce case in which the decree nisi was made in due course. That decree has been properly served upon the respondent. Yesterday, when the case was set down for the purpose of making the decree absolute, a point arose which I took time to consider. The point was whether notice of the application to make the decree absolute ought to be given to the respondent. I find there has been a variation in the practice. Formerly the practice seems to have been strictly observed of requiring service of such notice. But the more usual practice of late appears to have been not to require it; and it seems to me that, as a matter of principle, it ought not to be required. For all purposes for which the respondent is entitled to come before the Court, as for instance, for the purpose of an appeal, or for the purpose of making an application for review, the service of the decree nisi is sufficient. Therefore I think the more modern practice of not requiring notice to be given of...
Tag this Judgment!Golam Chunder Dey Vs. Nana Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal422
Petheram, Kt., C.J., Pigot, O'Kinealy, Macpherson and Ghose, JJ.1. The answer to both questions put to us on this reference depends, in truth, upon one point alone, namely, whether the sale of revenue-paying land is ipso facto void by reason of a copy of the sale proclamation not having been fixed up in the Collector's office as required by Section 289 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That question, we think, must be answered in the negative. There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which renders that formality a necessary preliminary to the validity of the sale. We express no opinion in answering the questions now before us upon the question which has been decided by the Allahabad Court in Jasada v. Mathura Das I.L.R. 9 All. 511 and Ganga Prasad v. Jag Lal Rai I.L.R. 11 All. 333 namely, whether non-compliance with the requirements of Section 290 of the Code of Civil Procedure does or does not invalidate a sale held, or purporting to be held, under Chapter XIX. That question is n...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Syed Mahomed Ali Khan Vs. Mackenzie and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal1
Petheram C.J., Pigot, O'Kinealy, Macpherson and Ghose, JJ.1. This was a suit for arrears of rent due on account of the years 1291, 1292, and 1293 in respect of a mouzah called Sultanpur. The suit was brought on a registered kabuliut.2. The learned Judges who heard the appeal made to this Court have referred to us for decision the following question:Whether suits for rent, founded on registered contracts in respect of lands subject to the provisions of the Tenancy Act, are governed by the limitation provided in that Act.3. We think the question must be answered in the affirmative. By Section 184 of the Rent Act, all suits for arrears of rent must be instituted within the time prescribed in Schedule III of that Act, and that in a suit for rent is declared to be three years. We think that this suit is governed by that Act, and the limitation is three years....
Tag this Judgment!indro Nath Banerjee Vs. Prom Sukh Chunder and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal420
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J., Pigot, O'Kinbaly, Macpherson, and Ghose, JJ.1. We think that when the Court, under the provisions of Section 121 of the Civil Procedure Code, gives leave to one of the parties to deliver interrogatories, it does not thereby make 'an order to answer interrogatories' under Chapter X, within the meaning of Section 136. The grant of leave to one party to deliver interrogatories to another does not amount to an order requiring the other party to answer them; that party may perhaps have good ground for refusing to answer them or some of them (Section 125). The order to answer interrogatories contemplated by Section 136, upon failure to comply with which the party in default is liable to have his defence struck out, is an order made under Section 127 upon application made by the party interrogating.2. We think the case of Lalla Dabee Pershad v. Santo Pershad I.L.R. 10 Gal. 505 was wrongly decided, and that the omission to answer interrogatories delivered after le...
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Sundari Debia Vs. Mahomed Abbas Mondul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal360
Petheram, Kt., C.J., Pigot, O'Kinealy, Macpherson and Ghose, JJ.1. The contention that dur-putni tenures are included within the terms of Clause (e) of Section 195 of the Bengal Tenancy Act cannot, we think, be supported. The words 'in so far as it relates to those tenures' must, we think, be treated as expressly limiting the provision to enactments relating to putnis properly and strictly so called, and as intended to exclude those which relate to tenures, which, although resembling putnis, as dur-putnis, etc., are not strictly putnis, not possessing all the qualities of them. We answer the question in the affirmative, and the appellants are therefore entitled to have the suit dismissed as against them with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Lalchand Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal549
Prinsep and Beverley, JJ.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate of the Northern Division of theft in a house, and of dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be such, under Sections 308 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The property stolen consists of some ornaments and precious stones belonging to Sookhraj Roy, a boy, under the Court of Wards, of considerable means. These articles were deposited in a box in his house in Calcutta, and were left by him there when he went out sight-seeing. The appellant was at that time in his room, and some relation or dependant who was lying sick. This fact is mentioned because it shows that the appellant had an opportunity to commit the theft, if that offence is otherwise proved against him.2. The evidence against the appellant consists in his having given information to the police, in consequence of which some of the precious stones, identified by two witnesses, were produced by a person who stated that he receive...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Bhuttacharji Vs. Surendro Prosad Bhuttacharji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal8
O'Kinealy and Ghose, JJ.1. This was a suit to enforce a mortgage bond. It was executed in the town of Calcutta, and what was hypothecated to the plaintiff was a certain sayer compensation payable at the General Treasury at Calcutta. Both the plaintiff and the defendants are residents of Calcutta, and the main question that arises in this appeal is whether the suit was cognizable by the Munsif's Court at Diamond Harbour.2. The ground upon which it is alleged that the suit would lie in the Munsif's Court at Diamond Harbour is that the sayer compensation, which was hypothecated by the bond, was compensation in the nature of malikana, which the Government allowed in lieu of sayer collections from a hat within the jurisdiction of that Court: and in regard to this ground the question that we have to consider is whether the said sayer compensation is immoveable property, or any interest in immoveable property, within the meaning of Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. Now, it will be fou...
Tag this Judgment!Roghu Nath Pershad and anr. Vs. Harlal Sadhu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal320
Tottenham and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover money due upon a mortgage by the sale of the mortgaged properties, which were the five properties originally mortgaged; and it appears that some have since passed out of the hands of the original mortgagor.2. The present owners were made parties to the suit. The present appeal has been preferred by one of those parties, the original defendant No. 12; and the point which we have to decide is whether by virtue of Section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act this defendant is entitled to require the plaintiff, mortgagee, to apportion his claim amongst the various properties mortgaged, and to accept from the appellant his rateable share only.3. The learned Pleader for the Appellant has not been able to put before us any authority for his construction of Section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act, nor are we aware of any such authority.4. We think the position is not tenable, but that the lower Courts are quite right in the view they h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »