Kolkata Court July 1892 Judgments
Rajbullubh Sahai Vs. Joy Kishen Pershad Alias Joy Lal and Khoob Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal29
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.1. It has been held by the District Judge in appeal that execution of the decree in this case is barred by limitation.2. It would seem that execution of this decree was deferred until the 2nd of September 1887, time having been granted to the judgment-debtor up to that date. The decree-holder applied for execution on the 9th September 1887 by sale of the mortgaged property by the Court of the Munsif of Hajipore. The sale was accordingly held; but on appeal to the High Court it was held on the 2nd September 1890 that the Hajipore Court had no jurisdiction. The decree-holder then applied on the 6th September 1890 to the Hajipore Court, which was the Court which passed the original decree, to transfer it for execution to the Court having jurisdiction. Application to execute this decree was next made on the 19th December 1890 to the Court of Muzaffarpur.3. On these facts the District Judge has held that execution is barred by limitation. He has calculated the perio...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Pershad Vs. Parbati Koer and anr., Minor, Through His Mother and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal895
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.1. The mortgage decree in this case was passed against one Barhma Dutt on the 17th August 1878, and since that date it has on various occasions been put in execution, portions of the debt having been realized. The present application for execution was presented on the 10th January 1890. It is not improbable, having regard to Section 230 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that this will be the last opportunity that the decree-holder will have to execute his decree. The previous application for execution seems to have terminated on the 27th November 1888. The order then passed by the Subordinate Judge was;--' In this case the sale was stayed awaiting the disposal of the regular suit, it being not necessary to keep this case pending, it is ordered that, attachment being allowed to stand, the case be struck off for the present.' This application to execute has been opposed, for it so happens that the judgment-debtor, Barhma Dutt, has died. Execution is now taken out a...
Tag this Judgment!Ripoo Murdan Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Rekha Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal325
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.1. We think the appeal must be dismissed. The only questions raised before us were those arising with respect to the fourth issue. Now, no notification such as is required under Section 5, Act XI of 1859, was issued in this case-- at least we understand that that is the allegation upon which the appeal is brought. No notification under that section having been made, the appellant contends that the sale was bad. We agree with the lower Court in thinking that that contention cannot prevail. It is argued that inasmuch as before the date of the sale, a notice under Section 10, Bengal Act VII of 1880, had been served, and a certificate issued by the Collector in pursuance of that section, that amounted to an attachment such as is contemplated by the third heading at the close of Section 5, Act XI of 1859. The ground on which that is contended is that it is enacted by Section 10, Bengal Act VII of 1880, that the service of such notice and certificate shall have the same...
Tag this Judgment!Gunamoni Dasi Vs. Gopal Chunder Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal370
Beverley, J.1. I concur with my learned colleague in dismissing this appeal. Having regard to the provisions of Sections 248, 249, and 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it seems to me clear that until notice is issued on the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, the Court has no jurisdiction to issue its warrant for the execution of the decree.2. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Jugul Kissore Lal Singh Deo Vs. Kartic Chunder Chottopadhya ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1892
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal116
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant to recover khas possession of a mouza named Khandari, included in zemindari kismut Saharjora, after setting aside a putni obtained by defendant No. 1 and the predecessor of the remaining defendants, on the 14th Falgun 1285 (25th February 1879), from the former proprietor of the zemindari. The plaintiff in his plaint states that the late Dhurm Singh Baboo, by a bond dated the 8th Assar 1269 (21st June 1862), mortgaged the said kismut Saharjora and another property to one Gadadhar Banerjee, as security for a loan of Rs. 11,000; that on the 25th Cheyt 1278 (8th April 1872) be again executed another bond in favour of the representatives of the said Gadadhur Banerjee for Rs. 8,000 being partly the balance due on the previous bond, and partly a fresh loan on the mortgage of the same properties; that on the 22nd Pous 1289 (5th January 1879) Bunwari Lal Singh, a representative of Dhurm Singh, executed a third...
Tag this Judgment!Samir Gazi and anr. Vs. Ram Chunder Sadhu Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal25
Macpherson and Beverley, JJ.1. This is a suit between two purchasers of a tenure at successive sales for arrears of rent. The tenure was sold on each occasion under the provisions of Section 59 of the Rent Act (VIII of 1869); and the question is which of the two purchasers has the preferential title. The facts are shortly these. The landlord obtained a decree against his tenant for arrears of rent for a period preceding 1288. Subsequently he obtained another decree against the same tenant for the arrears of 1288 and 1289. In 1883, in execution of the first decree, he caused the tenure to be sold, and it was purchased by the defendant No. 1, who is the appellant in this Court. The tenant, the judgment-debtor, then obtained an ex parte decree against the auction-purchaser, by which that sale was set aside; and after it had been so set aside the landlord, under the second decree referred to above, caused the tenure to be again sold in execution, and it was on this occasion purchased by th...
Tag this Judgment!Thakoor Dyal Singh and ors. Vs. Sarju Pershad Misser and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal22
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ. 1. We think that this case is concluded by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sadasiva Pillai v. Ramalinga Pillai 15 B.L.R. 383 : 24 W.R. 193 (197). The agreement entered into between the parties is not on the record before us, but it has been found by the first Court, and this finding has not been questioned in any further proceedings taken in the case, that the parties intended by the agreement arrived at that the higher rate of interest should be recovered in execution of a decree, that is to say, in the present case that in consideration of abstaining from bringing the properties attached to sale, the judgment-debtors agreed to pay to the decree-holder interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum from the date of the decree, instead of 6 per cent,, the rate allowed by the decree, and also the parties intended that the money recoverable under this agreement, that is to say, the sum due on calculation of the interest at the higher rate...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Dassia Vs. Ram Das and Two ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal409
Macpherson and Beverley, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover a one-third share of certain properties on the allegation that her father and his two brothers formed a joint Hindu family, and while so living acquired and held possession of the properties in suit. The main defence was a denial of the allegation of the joint ownership and possession of the properties by the three brothers, but this question has been decided in favour of the plaintiff' by both the lower Courts, and is not now before us.2. During the trial of the suit in the first Court a further point was raised by the principal defendant, who is the surviving brother of the plaintiff's father. This point does not appear to have been taken in the pleadings, unless it is referred to in the supplemental paragraph 3a of the written statement. It is said to form the subject of the third issue and it was no doubt argued before, and discussed in the judgment of, both the lower Courts. The point was this. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Nath Dut and ors. Vs. Gosto Behary Pyna and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal241
Banerjee, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent, who held a mortgage of a patni taluk, which has subsequently been sold for arrears of rent and free of the mortgage, to recover from the principal defendants the surplus proceeds of the patni sale which they have taken in satisfaction of decrees held by them against the defaulting patnidars.2. The defence of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the appellants before us, raised (amongst other points not necessary now to consider) this : namely, that as there was left sufficient money in deposit in the Collectorate over and above the amount taken by them, they are not liable for the plaintiff's claim.3. The Courts below have disallowed this contention of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and the only point argued in this appeal on their behalf is, whether the defendants are liable for any portion of the plaintiff's claim when the money taken by them out of the surplus sale proceeds still left enough in deposit in the Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Maksud Ali Vs. Nargis Dye
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal322
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.1. The plaintiff is proprietor of mouzah Dariapur in the district of Patna; the defendant is his tenant. In 1889 plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant, the effect of which upon the relief claimed in the present suit is the subject-matter of this appeal. In that suit the plaintiff alleged that in his property there was a long existing lane, which he described, and which he said existed for the use of the public, the pasis, and others, and that in that lane there were four palm-trees which were in his possession. He alleged that the defendant had no right to the land forming this lane; that she had wrongfully included it in her homestead; and that she had no right to the four palm-trees, of which he had all along enjoyed sole or exclusive use and possession. He said the defendant had enclosed the lane by two walls, one to the east with a door in it, and one to the west, and thereby enclosed within her compound two of the juice-producing palm-trees, and ther...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »