Kolkata Court May 1893 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.
Baikantha Nath Das Vs. Lolit Mohun Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal699
Pigot and Ghose, JJ.1. The question referred to this Fall Beach arises under Section 2 of Bengal Act III of 1884, which is as follows:On the commencement of this Act, the enactment specified the sixth schedule shall be repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column thereof.' But this repeal shall not revive any office, authority or thing abolished by any such enactment, or affect the validity of anything done or suffered, or any right, title, obligation or liability accrued before the commencement of this Act.And all rules and bye-laws prescribed, assessments, valuations, measurements, divisions and appointments made, powers conferred, and notifications published under any such enactment, and all other rules (if any) now in force and relating to the matters hereinafter dealt with, shall (so far as they are consistent with this Act) be deemed to have been respectively prescribed, made, conferred, and published hereunder.' And all references to any such enactment shall (so far as m...
In Re Dhunput Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal771
Comer Petheram, C.J.1. On Thursday, the 16th of February 1893, a petition was presented by Kustur Chand Rai Bahadur, who was the holder of hundis for Rs. 15,000 accepted by Rai Dhuuput Singh, but which were not then due, to adjudicate Rai Dhunput Singh an insolvent. The act of insolvency alleged in the petition was that on the 6th day of February 1893, at about 9 o'clock P.M., the said Rai Dhunput Singh Bahadur stopped payment of his liabilities, amounting to a large sum of money, which was payable by him that day on hundis and receipts, and the said Rai Dhunput Singh Bahadur, on the night of the said 6th of February, closed his said place of business, which has since been and still is closed, and his said principal gomasta, Panna Lall, and other gomastas and servants, departed and were absent from his said place of business at 4, Shama Bye's Lane aforesaid, on the 7th and 8th days of February 1893, with intent to defeat and delay the creditors of the said Rai Dhunput Singh Bahadur.' T...
Binad Lal Pakrashi and ors. Vs. Kalu Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal708
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I think that the case of Mohima Chunder Shaha v. Hazari Pramani I.L.R. 17 Cal. 45 was rightly decided, and that the defendants are ryots holding the land under the plaintiffs, the zemindars, and that they can only be ejected under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The possession of the land in question for the purpose of cultivating it was acquired a good many years ago by the defendants from the persons who at that time were in actual possession of the zemindari within which it was situated, and who were then the only persons who could give possession of the lands of the zemindari to cultivators. It is not suggested that the defendants did not then obtain possession as tenants under the bond fide belief of the title of their landlords, but since then it has been ascertained by the judgment of a Court of law that the zemindari did not belong to these persons, but to the plaintiffs, and the question is whether, now that the plaintiffs have established...
Upendra Lal Mukerjee Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal716
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This suit was a suit brought by one Upendra Lal Mukerjee, who was plaintiff in the suit (No. 32 of 1888) out of which the appeal No. 66 arose, to obtain the same relief in respect of a two-anna share in the same land which he held as an ijaradar for a term under the zemindar, and the Subordinate Judge has dismissed that suit entirely on ground that the plaintiff was prevented from bringing a separate suit by the provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he being of opinion that the cause of action was one and the same.2. This question is by no means an easy one, and it is clear that if the cause of action is absolutely identical, Section 43 does prevent the second action being brought. But the question is whether when a person in the position of this plaintiff has sustained an injury in respect of his proprietary or permanent interest in these lands, and also any injury in respect of a temporary or leasehold interest in the lands, it can be said...
Kunja Lal Banerji Vs. Dinbandhu Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1893
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.458
1. We do not propose to go into this case at any length, and we think it is one which we ought to dispose of at once, nor shall we dwell u pan the details which have been referred to as to the merits or demerits of the suit which is under appeal. There were two grounds on which the application for a Rule was made, two main grounds; one was that the District Judge in his capacity as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Berhampore College was sufficiently interested in the matters arising in the appeal to mike it unsuitable, according to the established judicial etiquette and propriety, that he should dispose of the appeal. In the 14th paragraph of the petition there were set out grounds of that nature which, it was urged, rendered it not suitable for Mr. Anderson, the District Judge, to try the case. Now, the connection between Mr. Anderson's acts as member of the Board and this case is this: that there was a meeting of the Board of Trustees on November 6th, 1889, at which an opinio...
Suresh Chandra Mukhopadhya and ors. Vs. Akkori Sing and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal746
Ghose, J.1. The facts of this case are shortly these. A putni taluk, lot Bhastara, consisting of a large number of mouzahs, was owned by the defendants 1 to 5, the Maharaja of Burdwan, defendant No 8, being the zemindar. Four out of the mouzahs which constituted the putni were let out in durputni, and the durputnidar sublet them in seputni to the plaintiffs. For the arrears of rent due upon the putni for the first half-year of 1293 B.S., the zemindar took proceedings under Regulation VIII of 1819, and caused the putni to be sold on the 17th November 1886 (Aughran 1293 B.S.). It was purchased by the defendants 6 and 7 for the sum of two lakhs of rupees, and the auction purchasers, entitled as they were to treat the durputni and seputni as cancelled by the sale, if the sale had been properly conducted, proceeded to take khas possession of the properties comprised in the putni, the result being that the plaintiffs, the seputnidars, were dispossessed of the four mouzahs. Thereupon they bro...
Golam Mowla and anr. Vs. Abdool Sowar Mondul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1893
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.922
Rampini, J.1. The plaintiffs sue in this case for arrears of rent of 2 1/2 bighas of bastu land and for ejectment of the defendant.2. It appears that the defendant formerly sold this land to the plaintiffs, and that having no place to live on at the time, he was allowed to remain at first for a period of one year, and then subsequently for a period of two years. In Chait 1295, he executed a kabuliat in favour of the plaintiffs for the period of two years, and by this kabuliat he bound himself down, at the expiry of the two years, to give up the land. He has however, not given up the land in accordance with this kabuliat; and the plaintiffs now sue him for arrears of rent and for ejectment.3. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendant is a settled raiyat of the village. It appears that he has a right of occupancy in some agricultural land in the village other than the subject of dispute in this case which, as I have said, is bastu land. I...
Jadub Lall Shaw Chowdhry Vs. Madhub Lall Shaw Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR21Cal34
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The only question that arises in this case is whether a person who holds the mortgage of any property can sell that property in execution of an ordinary money decree in satisfaction of a claim not arising under the mortgage. The Court below has answered the question in the negative, holding that Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act limits the rights of the decree-holder in such a case, and provides that he shall not bring the mortgaged property to sale otherwise than by instituting a suit under Section 67 of that Act. It is now contended before us in appeal on behalf of the decree-holder that the order of the Court below is wrong, and that Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, though apparently very general in its terms, must receive a limited construction, as otherwise anomalies and injustice would result such as the Legislature could never have intended.2. It is argued that the application of Section 99 should be limited to those cases where...
Mohendro Chandra Ganguli Vs. Ashutosh Ganguli and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal762
Prinsep, J.1. In a suit for partition brought by one co-sharer against two others, one of the defendants, amongst other objections, pleaded that the suit which had been instituted on a plaint bearing a stamp of Rs. 10 was undervalued, because the plaintiff had included amongst the joint properties certain valuable properties held exclusively by that defendant as her own, and it was stated that the object of the suit was to bring a suit for possession of that property on an inadequately stamped plaint and thus to defraud the Government revenue.2. This was accordingly made the subject-matter of one of the issues, and on this issue the Subordinate Judge rejected the plaint.3. On appeal this order was set aside, and the Subordinate Judge was directed to register and try the suit. The learned Judges, however, differed in their order as to costs, the learned Chief Justice holding that the cost should form portion of the costs in the suit and be divided between the parties to the partition. M...
Nursingh Lal and ors. Vs. Hurry Ram and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal129
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs have held this land for a period of about fifty years, and that they had acquired a right of occupancy in it before the Tenancy Act of 1869 was repealed by the present Act.2. It is contended that there is no provision in the present Act by which a person who holds land for any purpose other than that of cultivation can acquire in it a right of occupancy, that the plaintiffs are not ryots as defined in the present Act, and that Section 19, which saves a right of occupancy acquired by a ryot before the commencement of the present Act, has no application to the plaintiff's.3. In the first place we should be disposed to hold, apart altogether from the provisions of Section 19, that if a right of occupancy had been acquired under the old Tenancy Act, it is not forfeited by the repeal of that Act, there being nothing in the new enactment to deprive any person of a statutory right which bad been actuall...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »