Kolkata Court June 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.
Watson Vs. Crisp
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal689
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Recorder of Rangoon, and for the purpose of what I have to say, the simplest way is for me to read the plaint, which is a very short one. The plaint states that 'the plaintiff was, on the 27th day of March 1891, in possession of a piece of land known as Extra Suburban allotment, 3rd class, No. 455, Kokine Circle, Hmawbi Township, Hanthawaddy district.2. The defendant, on the said 27th day of March 1891, and while the plaintiff was in possession as aforesaid, broke into and entered upon the said land, accompanied by certain servants, and cut and took and carried away a quantity of grass growing upon the said 'land' and the plaintiff claims, first, Rs. 500 damages for the wrong complained of, and for the costs of the suit; and 2nd, an injunction restraining the defendant from any repetition of the acts referred to.2. Upon the plaint being filed the defendant took various objections. The first objection which he took was t...
Lalla Tirhini Sahai Vs. Lalla Hurruk Narain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR21Cal26
Rampini and Gordon, JJ.1. In this case the respondent obtained a decree upon a mortgage bond for the sum of Rs. 433, for costs, and for the sale of the mortgaged property. He then proceeded to sell the mortgaged property, and the proceeds of that sale were insufficient to satisfy his decree. He next applied to be allowed to execute his decree for the balance of the decretal amount, but he did not make any application under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The Lower Courts have held that it was not necessary for the respondent to make such an application; and the judgment-debtor now appeals to this Court, and contends that it was not open to the respondent in this case to execute his decree further against other property of the judgment-debtor, it not being a decree under the provisions of Section 90 of Act IV of 1882.3. We think that there is no doubt that the contention of the appellant is correct. The terms of the decree which the respondent has obtained is substantially...
Ramsukh Bajpai and anr. Vs. Faez Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal169
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents to recover arrears of rent of a certain tenure for the years 1249 to 1252 Maghi, the plaint praying for a decree against defendants 1 to 5, the former holders of the tenure, and stating that as the tenure was liable for those arrears, defendants 6 to 8, who had purchased the tenure at a sale for its arrears of rent for 1248 and certain previous years, were also made parties.2. Defendants 1 to 5 did not appear, but defendants 6 to 8 contested the suit on various grounds, of which it is now necessary to notice only one, namely, that the tenure was not liable for any arrears that accrued due before their purchase.3. The first Court held that the claim for 1249 was barred by limitation, and the tenure was not liable for any arrears that fell due before the sale at which the defendants 6 to 8 purchased it.4. On appeal by the plaintiff's, the Lower Appellate Court, relying chiefly on Section...
Arunmoyi Dasi Vs. Mohendra Nath Wadadar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal888
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Ghose, J.1. This is a suit to recover a share of joint family property belonging to one Narendra Math Wadadar, deceased, and his brothers, which the plaintiff claims as having devolved upon her under the law of inheritance through her son, Jotendra Nath, also deceased. The said Narendra and his brothers, Rajendra Nath, Mohendra Nath, and Debendra Nath, were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Dyabhaga, who generally lived for the purposes of business in the North-Western Provinces. He died on the 7th December 1887, leaving a son, Jotendra, then an infant, and his widow, the plaintiff in this suit. Previous to his death he had executed a will bearing date the 2nd November 1887; and the main question which arises in this case is as regards the right construction of that document. The son survived the father only a few months: he died on the 27th June 1888.2. In the latter part of the year 1889, the defendants, Mohendra Nath and Debendra Nath Wadada...
Murray Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR21Cal103
Prinsep, J.1. A very large number of coolies, more than 90 in number, made a complaint, of a somewhat general character, of various kinds of ill-treatment against the manager of the tea garden at Rangamati, in which they were under engagement to work. The Magistrate thereupon directed the District Superintendent of Police to hold an enquiry into these matters. The District Superintendent of Police accordingly proceeded to the tea garden and reduced the statements of the principal parties complaining into definite form, disclosing complaints of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement. On his report the Magistrate summoned a large number of persons, some of whom only attended, and he eventually convicted George Murray, the Manager of the Tea Garden, of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, and he has sentenced him for the former offence to a fine of Rs. 500, or in default, to one month's simple imprisonment, and for the latter, to one month's simple imprisonment.2. An appeal h...
Jogeswar NaraIn Deo Vs. Ram Chandra Dutt and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal758
O'Kinealy and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The plaintiff asserts that he was born on the 10th March 1867, corresponding to the 27th of Falgun 1274 B.S. This suit was filed on the 7th March 1891, and as he would have three years to bring it after he had attained his majority, he was according to his own showing within time. The defendants on the other hand assert that the plaintiff was not born in 1274, but in 1272, and that consequently his suit was out of time. Both the parties fix the time of birth with reference to a famine which took place in that part of the country in 1273. In the discussion which arose on the point of limitation, it was strongly urged for the appellant that the statements of deceased persons in regard to the date of the plaintiff's birth were not admissible as evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act; and in support of that contention the case of Haines v. Guthrie L.R. 13 Q.B.D. 818 was referred to. It was further asserted that the law of England in this respect...
Gobind Pershad Alias Gobind Lal Vs. Rung Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR21Cal23
Rampini and Gordon, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether an application for execution of a decree is barred by limitation.2. The first Court holds that the application is not barred, and cites certain authorities in support of its judgment.3. On appeal the District Judge has set aside the order of the first Court, being of opinion that the application is barred, and he relies on the case of Raghunandun Pershad v. Bhugoo Lall I.L.R. 17 Cal. 268.4. In second appeal it is contended that the District Judge is wrong and that the Munsif is right.5. The present application for execution was made on the 17th of September 1891, and a previous application for execution was made on the 2nd of July 1888. Prima facie, therefore, the application of the 17th of September 1891 is barred. It appears, however, that the following proceedings were taken in connection with the application of the 2nd of July 1888. The judgment-debtor objected to the execution of the decree, as being barred by...
Mahomed Azhar Vs. Raj Chunder Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal354
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a five-annas share of the estate referred to in the plaint. On the 21st March 1889, a 13 annas 8 gundas 3 cowries share of that estate, including the plaintiff's five-anna share, was sold by the Collector for arrears of revenue under the provisions of Act XI of 1859. This suit is brought to set aside that sale on the ground of the various illegalities or irregularities set out in the plaint.2. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit, holding that no illegality or irregularity has been proved.3. It is now contended that the sale is bad on the ground that the notices prescribed by Sections 5 and 7 of Act XI of 1859 were not published, and this is the only ground which we need consider. Section 5 of Act XI of 1859 provides that no estate and no share or interest in any estate shall be sold for the recovery of arrears if such estate is under attachment by order of any judicial authority or managed by the Collector in ac...
Watson and Company Vs. Sreekristo Bhumick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal132
Macpherson and Gordon, JJ.1. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent that under Section l53 of the Bengal Tenancy Act no appeal lies in this case. The suit is to recover from the defendant rent due to the plaintiff, including cesses and dak tax, and the amount claimed is less than a hundred rupees. The dak cess is claimed under the contract by which the rent is payable; it is claimed practically as part of the rent, and according to the definition of that word as contained in the Bengal Tenancy Act, we think it must he regarded as rent, that is to say, as a part of what is lawfully payable in money for use and occupation of the land held by the tenant. The occupation of the land was the consideration for the payment of the dak cess, and that being so, the amount of rent is in dispute, and this takes the case out of the provision of Section 153, which in certain cases bars an appeal.2. The appellant contends, first, that the Lower Appellate Court was wrong in reversing ...
Surjan Raot Vs. Bhikari Raot and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal214
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. My answer to the question referred to the Full Bench is that, when an application is made to a Court for filing a private award, and objections to the validity of the award are raised in a verified written statement, and the objections are such as fall within Section 521 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is not bound to hold its hand and reject the application, but must inquire into the validity of the objections raised, and thereupon determine whether the award shall be filed or not.2. Before examining the cases on the subject, it will be well to see what are the provisions of the Code, by which the rights and liabilities, whatever they may be, are created.3. Sections 506 to 522 create a system of procedure by which the matters in issue in a suit may, if the parties wish it, be tried by arbitration, and by which the judgment and decree in the suit must be in accordance with the award, unless it has been set aside in consequence of the misconduct of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »