Kolkata Court July 1891 Judgments
Chintamoni Dutt Vs. Rash Behari Mondul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1891
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal17
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether, after the transfer of a tenure by the recorded tenant to another person, that transfer having been duly registered under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the transferor is still liable for the rent of the tenure until the landlord has actually received notice of such transfer.2. The suit was brought to recover the rent of several years--from 1292 to Assin 1295. The defendant pleaded that in the month of Chait 1293 he had transferred his tenure to another person, that he had had the transfer duly registered, and that he had deposited the rent due, with interest, up to the end of 1293, and he contended that he was not liable for any subsequent rent.3. The Lower Appellate Court admitted the plea as valid; and declined to permit the landlord to call evidence to show that he had not actually received notice of the transfer. And in so ruling acted upon the authority of the case of Kristo Bulluv Ghose v. Kristo...
Tag this Judgment!Girjanath Roy Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Ram NaraIn Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1891
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal264
Pigot and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is a suit to set aside a sale purporting to have been made under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The lower Courts have both decided in favour of the plaintiff, and this is an appeal against that decision.2. Two points are enough in this case for us to deal with. The first is the question of limitation; and secondly, a question which does not seem to have been discussed before the District Judge, viz., the validity of the certificate. We should gather that the question of the validity of the certificate was not debated before the District Judge, inasmuch as he does not consider that question in his judgment at all, but simply deals with the question as to whether the suit was barred by limitation. It will be convenient, therefore, to deal with the question of limitation after dealing with the question of the certificate.3. The certificate was granted in respect of arrears of rent said to have been due by a plaintiff, Ram Narain (leaving aside the names of...
Tag this Judgment!Peary Mohun Aich Vs. Anunda Charan Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal631
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an application to execute a decree made by the Munsif of Sealdah on the 7th September 1877. After various attempts to execute the decree, the judgment-creditor on the 2nd September 1889 applied for the transfer of the decree to the Bagirhaut Court under Section 223 of the Code. An order for transfer was made, and on the 9th September the Court having been closed from the 3rd to the 8th (inclusive) on account of the Mohurrum holidays, the decree-holder applied to the Munsif of Bagirhaut for execution of the decree under Section 230. Upon that application being made, the judgment-debtor objected, inter alia, that the application ought not to be granted, as it had been made more than 12 years from the date of the decree sought to be enforced (Section 230, Code of Civil Procedure).2. Both the Lower Courts have held that the Court having been closed from the 3rd to the 8th September, and the application having ...
Tag this Judgment!Jasoda Deye Vs. Kirtibash Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal639
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapore, dismissing an application for the execution of a decree.2. The decree-holder is the appellant, Jasoda Deye, and the decree was in respect of a bond by which property was mortgaged. The decree-holder seeks to execute by sale of the mortgaged property in the hands of the judgment-debtor.3. The application has been refused upon the objection of the judgment-debtor that the decree-holder, Jasoda Deye, obtained a decree only in her capacity of widow of her late husband, Kashinath Das, and that the property really belonged to the estate of Kashinath. Before the decree had been obtained a suit had been brought by the judgment-debtor, as reversioner to the estate of Kashinath, to obtain the removal of the widow Jasoda from her position as possessor of the estate of her husband, and in that suit a Receiver to the estate was appointed; and by the decree passed in that suit the widow was ousted. T...
Tag this Judgment!Saroda Sunduri Debia Vs. Kartick Chunder Ghuttuck and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal642
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the District Judge of Burdwan. He differed from the Munsif, who had held that the suit was barred by limitation, and having come to the conclusion that the suit was not barred, the Judge reversed the Munsif's decision and remanded the case to be disposed of on the merits. In passing this order the District Judge had overlooked the fact that the Munsif had already decided the suit on the merits, he having tried every issue laid down. The District Judge, therefore, if he thought the suit was not barred by limitation, should have himself determined the case on the merits; and if he thought it necessary to take further evidence, he should not have sent the case back as he did, but should have kept it on his own file and directed the Munsif to take further evidence and submit the same to him. He could not legally get rid of the case by remanding it under Section...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›