Kolkata Court March 1892 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Durga Prosad Bundopadhya and ors. Vs. Brindabun Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal504
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. We have the satisfaction of feeling that the arguments of the learned pleaders on both sides have placed before us everything that could be said in this matter, which is of some importance. We agree with the District Judge in the opinion he has expressed regarding the application of Sections 15 and 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to putni tenures with due regard to Section 195 (e). In our opinion these provisions apply to putni tenures. It seems to us that the object of Section 195 (e) is that nothing in the Bengal Tenancy Act should interfere with the putni law in respect of putni tenures, but that in other respects the Bengal Tenancy Act should be held to apply as supplementing the putni law. The appeals are therefore dismissed with costs....
Haripria Debi Vs. Ram Churn Myti and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal541
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by one of two proprietors of some nij-jot land to eject a tenant after service of notice. After considerable delay in consequence of more than one remand by the Lower Appellate Court (we think the proceedings might have been somewhat shorter), the plaintiff has obtained a decree in the terms of Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for ejectment of the tenant, in the event of his not paying within six months from the date of the decree a certain sum fixed as compensation in consequence of waste committed by him in breach of the terms of his contract.2. The plaintiff appeals, contending that she is entitled to an absolute order for ejectment; and the defendant makes an objection under Section 561 of the Civil Procedure Code that the plaintiffs suit should have been dismissed, inasmuch as plaintiff is only one of two joint landlords, and therefore, debarred by Section 188, Bengal Tenancy Act, from suing separately.3. We are of opinion that ...
Kalachand Kyal Vs. Shib Chunder Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal392
Pigot, J.1. I am of opinion that the judgment in the case of Mackintosh v. Crow I.L.R. 9 Cal. 689 was right in law, and that the case of Baij Nath Singh v. Shah Ali Hosain I.L.R. 14 Cal. 248 was erroneous, so far as it dissented from that judgment.2. I do not think that the case before the Privy Council of Balkishen Das v. Run Bahadur Singh I.L.R. 10 Cal. 305 at all affects the decision in Mackintosh v. Crow I.L.R. 9 Cal. 689. It is true that in that case enhanced interest was allowed on the first instalment from the date of the solehnama. But the parties had already, as pointed out in the judgment, voluntarily settled upon the basis of that construction of the part of the 3rd Article which related to this part of the claim. As pointed out in Nanjappa v. Nanjappa I.L.R. 12 Mad. 161 (166 ) 'it was the other stipulation, viz., that for payment of enhanced interest on the whole decretal money that was impugned in the argument, and this stipulation was not open to the objection that it mad...
Mohima Chunder Biswas Vs. Tarini Sunker Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal487
Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Faridpur refusing to dismiss a guardian. The guardian had been appointed under Act XL of 1858, which has since been repealed by the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890); and the first question that we have to determine is whether an appeal lies to this Court against the order of the District Judge. Section 47 of Act VIII of 1890 gives an appeal in certain cases; and what we have to see is, whether the order complained against falls within any of the cases mentioned in that section.2. We have examined Section 47 and the other portions of the Act; but we have failed to discover that the Legislature has provided for an appeal to this Court from an order of the kind with which we are now concerned.3. We may here mention that the question, as to whether an appeal lies to this Court from the order complained of, was very candidly brought to our notice by the learned vakil, who appeared for the appellant, at the outset ...
Bindubashini Chowdhurani Vs. Janhobi Chowdhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1892
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.151
1. We are of opinion that this rule must be discharged.2. The facts briefly stated appear to be these:3. The plaintiff through his raiyats had been in possession of certain lands. In 1297, owing to great floods, these lands were completely submerged and the plaintiffs tenants sought safety for themselves and property by forsaking, the submerged lands and going to some higher lands. When the flood was subsiding the plaintiff's raiyats intended to go back and occupy the lands which they had been obliged to forsake owing to the flood. The defendant was anxious to get possession of these lands, and as a matter of fact, when the flood receded there was a race between the plaintiff's raiyats and the defendant's raiyats as to who should get possession of the flooded lands first. The defendant's raiyats succeeded in the race and were the first to gain physical possession by putting foot upon the submerged lands. Thereupon the plaintiff brought suit under the provisions of Section 9 of the Spec...
Orr Vs. Norendra Nath Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal368
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. Upon the facts stated, our answer is that judgment was rightly given in favour of the plaintiff against Messrs. Sen & Co.2. When judgment was given in favour of Thakamoney Dassee against the Secretary of State for her claim and costs, both Mr. Orr and Messrs. Sen & Co. had a lien on that judgment for the amount of their costs, which either of them might have enforced by notice to the defendant not to pay over the amount recovered to the plaintiff until the lien was satisfied, and after the judgment had been satisfied, and the amount thereof was in the hands of Messrs. Sen & Co., they had a lien upon the fund for their costs. Mr. Orr by handing his bill to Messrs. Sen & Co. for taxation, and by not giving notice to the defendant of his lien, enabled Messrs. Sen & Co. to get the whole fund into their hands; but we think they did so on behalf, not only of themselves and the plaintiff, but on behalf of Mr. Orr also, and that the fund when in their hands was s...
Meer Mahomed Israil Khan Vs. Sashti Churn Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal412
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff under the following circumstances:Two Muhammadan ladies of the name of Azizunnissa and Kamrunnissa, respectively, were the owners, in possession, of the property in suit held as a shikmi taluq under the superior landlord. In the year 1286 they purported to make a wakf of their shares in various properties, including the one in suit. The wakfnama of Azizunnissa alone has been translated and printed in the paper-book; but the terms of both are said to be identical. Both the ladies by their respective deeds constituted themselves mutwallis in respect of the shares dedicated by themselves. And they provided that upon the death of either, the survivor should be the mutwalli or manager in respect of both shares, in other words, of the entire dedicated property, and that upon her decease the plaintiff should be the mutwalli. The plaintiff was a party to these deeds of wakf, which were duly registered in accordance with ...
Budhu Nath Poddar and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal538
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant as the owner of a Railway for the loss of a box of coins delivered to them to be carried, and accepted by them for that purpose. The defence is that the defendant is protected from liability by reason of Section 11 of the Railway Act (IV of 1879), but the fact is that at the time of the delivery of the box to the Railway people they were informed of what the nature of the contents was, and with that information they made no demand for any increased payment for insurance. That seems to me to be within the authority of the case of The Great Northern Railway Co. v. Behrens 7 H. & N. 950. The head note of that case is.' 'Where a carrier receives goods of the description mentioned in the 11 Geo. IV & 1 Wm, IV, c. 68; and the person delivering the same has declared their value and nature, he is not bound to tender, but the carrier must demand the increased charge mentioned in the notice affixed in hi...
Radha Dulari Koer Vs. DulhIn Golab Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1892
Reported in: (1892)ILR19Cal463
Petheram, C.J.1. No separate decree was drawn up in this case, but the last two paragraphs of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge are as follows:2. 'For these reasons it is ordered that a partition of the properties mentioned in list No. 1 of the plaint, with the exception of the thakurbari and of the houses mentioned in list No. 2, be made. The defendant No. 3 through his pleader states that his share may be separated also. The defendant No. 2 does not want her share to be separated. Thus one share (one-fourth) will be given to the plaintiff. Another share (one-fourth) will be given to the defendant' No. 3. The remaining share (half) belonging to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 will be kept joint. The thakurbari and the thakurs specified in list No. 3 will be kept joint. A scheme for the worship of the thakurs by turns by the co-sharers will be made at the time of the passing of the final decree. The costs of the partition will be borne by the parties in proportion to their respective s...
Guru Proshad Dhur, Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal51
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. My answer to the first question is, that the case of Secretary of State for India in Council v. Fazal Ali I.L.R. 18 Cal. 234 is not rightly decided.To the second, that Section 10 does not apply to such a case.To the third, that Article 120 does apply.To the fourth, that the suits are not barred by limitation.2. The terms on which the residue shall remain in the hands of the Collector, and the conditions on which the proprietor or proprietors of the estate sold are to be entitled to receive it, are laid down in Section 31 of Act XI of 1859, and are as follows: 'Holding the residue, if any, in deposit, on account of the late recorded proprietor or proprietors of the estate or share of an estate sold, or their heirs or representatives to be paid to his or their receipt on demand in themanner following : to wit, in shares proportioned to their recorded interest in the estate or share of an estate sold, if such distinction of shares were recorded, or if not, then a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »