Kolkata Court June 1891 Judgments
Bunko Behary Gangopadhya and anr. Vs. Nil Madhub Chuttopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal635
Beverley, J.1. This is a second appeal from an order of the District Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs, reversing an order of the First Subordinate Judge of that district, by which he bad held that a certain application to execute a decree was barred.2. It appears that there had been a previous application to execute the decree, and in that proceeding the judgment-debtor had appeared and objected that the decree-holder had assigned his rights under the decree to a third person. Upon that the pleader for the decree-holder intimated that he would not proceed with the application for execution, but would advise his client to bring a regular suit to set aside the alleged deed of assignment. The Subordinate Judge therefore dismissed that application for non-prosecution. The First Court was of opinion that the dismissal of that application operated as a bar to the present application; but this view was overruled by the District Judge.3. On appeal before us it is contended-(1) That the order on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Nityahari Roy and ors. Vs. Dunne and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal652
O' Kinealy and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This is a suit brought to establish a right to a ferry franchise, called the Permutta-Guzarghat-Aglapur ferry, in the neighbourhood of Manikgunge, and to have it declared that the defendants have no right to ply or run the ferry said to have been carried on in the vicinity of the plaintiffs' ferry.2. The plaintiffs stated that the Permutta-Guzarghat-Aglapur ferry was settled with their predecessors in title with the settlement of a 6-anna share of pergunnah Khalilabad entered in the Government rent-roll as No. 113; and they asserted that from the time of the Permanent Settlement downwards till about 1286 they had been in undisputed possession of this ferry, They further stated that in the year 1286 the defendants set up a rival ferry, and by degrees succeeded in putting an end to their ferry in 1289. In paragraph 3 of the plaint they said:The said ferry-ghat had always remained in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 15, though its la...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Chundra Deb Vs. Gopi Krishna Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal48
Pigot, J.1. Having already decided the preliminary question of limitation in favour of the appellant, we have since heard the arguments upon the objection preferred by the intervenors. And upon an examination of the record it appears to us quite clear that the learned Judge below has erred in not affording the intervenors an opportunity of being heard upon this case.2. It was contended that they were creditors, and that persons in their position were not entitled to appear and support the will. A decision of the Privy Council, in which the subject was touched upon, was cited; but we held on Friday last, having regard to the authorities in this Court, not overruled by their Lordships of the Privy Council, that persons who are purchasers of interests under the will; from the executor, have a right to intervene. Two cases, not cited at the Bar, but mentioned by us this morning, are in point, being cases in the Probate Court in England, in which the present Lord PENZANCE and Sir JAMES HANN...
Tag this Judgment!Baij Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Sukhu Mahton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal534
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. These are two groups of second appeals. The first group begins with No. 1454 of 1889, and goes up to No. 1502 of 1889; the second group begins with No. 1438 of 1890, and goes up to No. 1470 of 1890, and includes another case, No. 1171 of 1890. They arise out of suits for rent brought in respect of land situated in an estate in the district of Patna. The first group were a number of cases instituted in the month of May 1887, the second group were a number of cases instituted in the month of May 1888. They are between the same parties, and in respect of the same lands, but the first set of cases was tried in the first instance by one Munsif, and in appeal heard by one Subordinate Judge; the second set of cases was tried by another Munsif, and the appeals from his judgment in those cases heard by another Subordinate Judge, and all these four officers have come to the same conclusion upon the facts.2. As I said just now, these are suits for rent, and the only...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Chandra Mitter and ors. Vs. Rajendra Nath Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1891
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.923
1. This is a dispute between two parties as to the apportionment of the compensation money awarded under the Act for the acquisition of land for public purposes, the one party being the landlords, and the other the tenants. The tenants are the appellants in this appeal.2. The tenants were in occupation of the land in question under a lease obtained from the opposite party. Their contention is that this lease was a permanent and hereditary one, and that, therefore, a larger measure of compensation should have been allowed to them than the Courts below have given them. It was further contended that even if the Court should hold that their lease is not in itself a permanent one, it is one which was renewable at their option, and, therefore, was practically a permanent one; for they contend that it was renewable at the same rate of rent as is paid under it. Their last contention is that at the least the lower Appellate Court should have held that the tenants had a right of occupancy in the...
Tag this Judgment!Hunter Vs. Hunter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal539
Wilson, J.1. On the authorities I think you have shown sufficient cause for making the decree absolute, and it will be made absolute accordingly. Costs of this application will be cost in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Bilash Chunder Roy Vs. Dakhina Churn Chattopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal526
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. I think that the Subordinate Judge was right to set aside the sale, and that the appeal must be dismissed.2. The point is concluded by the decisions in the cases of Obhoy Churn Coondoo v. Golam Ali I.L.R. 7 Cal. 410 and Prem Chand Dey v. Mokhoda Debt I.L.R. 17 Cal. 699.Ghose, J.3. The question raised in this appeal is whether a sale held by the Second Subordinate Judge of Dacca (Baboo Mutty Lall Sircar) on the 15th September 1886, in execution of a decree passed by the First Subordinate Judge of the same district, was a bad sale for want of jurisdiction.4. It appears that, in exercise of the powers vested in him by Section 18, Act VI of 1871, the District Judge of Dacca, on the 20th January 1883, defined the local limits of the jurisdiction of the First and Second Subordinate Judges of that place. And the Court below in this case finds--and there can be no doubt as to the correctness of that finding--that the property which was sold on the 15th September ...
Tag this Judgment!Chatter Lal and ors. Vs. Thacoor Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal518
Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. The only real question in this case is whether a person nominated by a Collector under Section 69 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; for the purpose of making a division of crops between the landlord and the tenant is a public servant within the meaning of the Penal Code. We think that he is not. He does not fulfil any of the characteristics of a public servant as defined by the law. His mere office is to go down on the nomination of the Collector and appraise and make a division of the crops as between two private persons who are to pay him (or his services. Under these circumstances, we think that this conviction should not be sustained, and this rule should be made absolute to set it aside....
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra NaraIn Bagchi Vs. Watson and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal510
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.1. This was a suit by the plaintiff-appellant to recover a certain sum of money which is said to have been due from the defendants to the minor sons of one Sriram Chowdhry on account of ijara rent, and which the plaintiff claims under a transfer from the guardian of the minors. The defendants denied the plaintiff's right to sue alone, and they also denied the existence of the debt, and the reality and bona fides of the transfer to the plaintiff, and urged that the payment of consideration for the transfer was falsely stated in order to escape the provisions of Section 135 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that the plaintiff was in no case entitled to recover more than the price he may have actually paid with interest and expenses of the sale.2. The First Court disallowed all the objections of the defendants and gave plaintiff a decree for the entire claim. On appeal the District Judge has reversed that decision and dismissed the claim, holding that, even if ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Sahoy Bhagut and ors. Vs. Baij Nath Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal556
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to this Bench by the Division Bench is as follows: 'Whether a document affecting immoveable property is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act within the meaning of Section 49, when it bears a certificate of registration under Section 60, although under Section 28 the officer who made the certificate should not have registered the document'.2. The entire system of registration is created by the Registration Act III of 1877, and no power to register any document, except that given by the Act, exists in any one; so that, unless the Act gives a Sub-Registrar power to register documents which related to lands not situated within his sub-district, he has no such power, and if he goes through the form of registration, the Act is of no effect. The question then is, does the Act give him such power? If it does, I think that Section 28 should be read as directory only; if it does not, the question of the c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »