Kolkata Court July 1891 Judgments
Matangini Dasi and anr. Vs. Jogendra Chunder Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal84
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This was a suit for maintenance brought against the defendant No. 1 by his wife and his minor son, upon the ground that his cruelty and other misconduct had put her in fear of her life and driven her to take refuge with her son at her own father's house. She claimed maintenance for herself and son at the rate of Rs. 50 per mensem, and Rs. 25 per mensem was claimed for the son's education. There was a further claim for maintenance for the six months before suit.2. The defendants 2 and 3 were made parties to the suit because they are executors appointed under the will of Junmejoy Mullick, late father of defendant No. 1, and the maintenance is claimed from the estate.3. The Lower Court held that the plaintiffs had made out no sufficient case for a decree for separate maintenance for the future; but gave a decree for Rs. 150 in respect of the maintenance and education of the son for the six months previous to the suit. The plaintiff's having appealed, the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Preonath Karar Vs. Surja Coomar Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal26
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J. and Ghose, J.1. This was a suit by one Preonath Karar for declaration of right to a moiety share of certain Government promissory notes of the value of Rs. 7,400. They belonged originally to Nilmadhub Gossain, and devolved on his death upon his mother, Kudumbini, under the law of inheritance; and on the death of the latter, one Jugomohun Gossain became entitled to them as the next reversionary heir. Jugomohun left a widow, Saroda Sundari (defendant No. 4), and two sons, Surja Coomar and Haro Coomar (defendants 1 and 2), and a grandson, Hurish Chunder (defendant No. 3), by a pre-deceased son. It appears on the evidence that Jugomohun was possessed of certain immoveable properties, and after his death the two-third share of his two sons, the defendant 1 and 2, in most of, if not in all, the properties, including the dwelling-house, was sold away at auction for their debts. The evidence further shows that the defendant No. 3 separated in mess from the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Bolai Chand Ghosal and ors. Vs. SamiruddIn Mandal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal646
Pigot, J.1. We have only to deal here with the interest of a three-fourths share of the property, that is to say, with the dismissal by the District Judge of the claim in respect of the share conferred by the pottah of the 19th December 1881; and as to that, because the plaintiff, who represented the remaining one-fourth of that interest, did not appeal to the District Judge against the decision of the Munsif, which rejected his claim as representing Gobind. In the view we take of the case, that party would, had he appealed, come within the scope of the principle to be applied.2. It has been held by the District Judge that the bar created by Article 47 of the Limitation Act operates as a bar to the entire claim. Proceedings under Section 530 of the old Criminal Procedure Code were, in December 1880, instituted by Gobind and some of his tenants against the second defendant and some of his tenants. At that time Gobind's position was this:He had partly by a letter, and partly by an oral a...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahir Singh and ors. Vs. Gunga Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal4
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. These were two suits brought by the mortgagees of certain properties to recover the mortgage money, and they have obtained decrees.2. The appellant is the defendant No. 7 who held a mortgage of some of the properties included in these mortgages, his mortgage being prior in date to that of the plaintiffs in both these suits.3. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suits has disposed of the defendant's claim on the ground that he had himself put up a portion of the property mortgaged to him for sale, and had bought that property himself for a sum considerably less than its value, and that the true value of the property so put up and so purchased by him exceeded greatly the amount of his debt, and that under the authority of the case of Hart v. Tara Prasanna Mukherji I.L.R. 11 Cal. 718 the second mortgagees were entitled to treat his claim as paid off and done with, and were entitled to enforce their lien without reference to his mortgage. In coming to this co...
Tag this Judgment!Girindro Chunder Roy Vs. Jarawa Kumari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1891
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal105
Pigot and Banerjee, JJ.1. We think that in this case the effect of Sections 610 and 649 of the Civil Procedure Code is that the Court which formerly had, but now no longer has, territorial jurisdiction ought, when the decree is sent to it, to exercise by its own motion, or when applied for, the provisions of Section 223, and transfer the decree for execution to the Court which now has territorial jurisdiction. Whether or not under the law, as it now stands, the decree under Section 610 ought, under such a decree as that of the Judicial Committee in this case, to be sent direct from this Court to the Court now having territorial jurisdiction is a matter which we need not discuss in this case.2. The appeal is allowed, but without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Gudri Koer Vs. Bhubaneswari Coomar Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal19
Macpherson and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. In this suit, which is for foreclosure, the plaintiff claims interest at the rate stipulated in the deed from the date on which the money became payable up to the date on which the suit was brought: and the question is whether he is entitled to get interest for such period at the stipulated rate or at any lower rate. The deed of conditional sale was executed on the 15th September 1881. The principal money, with interest at the rate of one per cent. per mensem, was payable on the 15th August 1882, and the suit was brought on the 30th November 1888. There is no stipulation in the deed to pay interest after the due date, and certainly no agreement to that effect can be implied from the terms of the deed. The Subordinate Judge has held that, under these circumstances, the suit having been brought more than six years from the date on winch the money became due, the claim for interest from that time is barred by limitation.2. It is argued that, under Act XXXII...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhabini Vs. TIn Couri Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1891
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal15
Pigot and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case we think we must affirm the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, and dismiss the appeal, not upon the first of the grounds stated by the District Judge, as to the ignorance of the plaintiff of the prohibition in the will, but upon the other ground, namely, upon the construction of the will, and upon certain circumstances in this case, which we shall presently advert to. We agree with the learned Judge in thinking that upon a fair construction of paragraph 7 of the will, which provides that 'if any of the members of my family, either from misunderstanding or for any other reason, live in any other than a holy place for more than three months, she will be deprived of all my properties '--it would appear that what was contemplated was a wilful, deliberate, and intentional leaving. Now, in this case, there are very special circumstances apart from the fact of the girl being still a minor, for it is found by the First Court, and as we understand, not...
Tag this Judgment!Bhugwan Chundor Roy and ors. Vs. Bidhu Mukhi Dabi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal643
Pigot and Banerjee, JJ.1. We think in this case the view taken by the learned District Judge cannot be supported. It has already been held in this Court, in Norendro Nath Roy Chowdhry v. Srinath Sandel (Ante, p. 641) that the powers under the record of rights section do not include the case of a controversy and dispute as to the boundaries of the owners of conterminous estates. Here the record of rights must necessarily involve a determination as to which estate the lands, in respect of which this controversy has arisen, belong to. This is a matter which is not within the scope of the section. No doubt the Act has not provided as to what should be done when such a controversy as this arises in express terms. But we take it what was before the District Judge sitting, as he was sitting in this case, in appeal from a decision of the Collector in a matter of quasi-executive character, though, no doubt, conducted in a judicial form, and in a judicial character, involved the question whether...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Mahadeo Singh and anr. Vs. Thakur Magundeo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal647
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This appeal is by the defendant in the original suit; and the suit was to eject him from land claimed by the plaintiffs, who were the ticcadars, as majhes land, by which we understand land ordinarily cultivated by the landlord himself or by the ticcadar. The defendant pleaded that he had a right of occupancy in this land as a raiyat, and could not be turned out of it.2. The Courts below have both held that this matter is res judicata, and the defendant is no longer entitled to be heard in respect of it, upon the ground that in a previous suit brought by the plaintiffs to eject the defendant, the same objection was taken, and the Munsif decided it in favour of the plaintiffs, but dismissed the plaintiffs' suit because they had not given the defendant a proper notice to quit. The Courts below held that the finding on this point in that suit was a bar to its being raised and tried in the present suit: and the Courts relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Co...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Mohan Roy and ors. Vs. Doybaki Nundun Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal13
Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Beerbhoom directing that a certain property comprised in a mortgage decree be sold in execution of the said decree.2. The property in question is situate within the local limits of the District Court of Nya Doomka, but it is one of the two properties that were mortgaged to the decree-holders under one and the same mortgage bond, the other property being situate within the jurisdiction of the Beerbhoom Court. The suit in which the decree was obtained was instituted under Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code in the Beerbhoom Court, and a decree was passed in May 1890 in terms of suction 88 of the Transfer of Property Act for sale of both the parcels of property comprised in the mortgage.3. It has not been questioned before us, nor indeed could it be questioned, that the District Judge of Beerbhoom had jurisdiction to make the decree he did; but what has been contended is that he could not sell the property within t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »