Kolkata Court August 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.
Latu Vs. Kalu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal259
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, respondent, for declaration of his title to, and for recovery of mesne profits for certain years in respect of, a two-annas share of some land, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from holding possession thereof, on the allegation that the plaintiff's mother had obtained a decree for the said share and that the plaintiff was entitled to the same as the sole heir of his mother.2. The defendants, amongst other things, urged that the suit was barred by limitation and also by Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the plaintiff, who was out of possession, could not sue for any of the reliefs claimed.3. The first Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff's right to obtain possession was barred, his predecessor in title having sued for possession and having failed to obtain a decree for it, and that being disentitled to possession of the disputed land, the plaintiff could n...
Nitye Singh and anr., Baikunt Nath Prodhan and Ram Taruck Das Vs. the ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR21Cal38
W. Comer Patheram, C.J.1. My answer to the question referred to the Full Bench is 'that a Revenue Officer in preparing a record-of-rights under Sections 101 and 102 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is not competent to determine the validity of rent-free titles set up by persons occupying lands within the area under inquiry, so as to resume such lands and to declare them liable to settlement of rent.'2. Section 101 is the section which creates the power, and the power created is to order a survey to be made and a record-of-rights to be prepared, that is to say, to prepare a record of such rights as the officer finds in existence. The words cannot in my opinion bear the meaning that they give the officer the power to create fresh rights, and to record them when he has created them.3. The question assumes that the land occupied within the area under inquiry is land which has not been held by the occupier as a tenant within the definition in Section 3 of the Act, that is, that the occupier is a p...
Annopurna Dasi Vs. Kallayani Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal164
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of 24-Pargannas made on the application of Annopurna Dasi for letters of administration in respect of the estate left by one Boroda Prosad Bysack. This gentleman died some years ago, leaving the petitioner Annopurna Dasi, his widow, as his lawful heir. She has ever since the death of Boroda Prosad been in possession of the estate : she now applies for letters of administration.2. The reason why letters of administration are now required is said to be this, that the estate is heavily involved, that is to say, there is a debt to the extent of Rs. 25,000, and this debt has to be discharged, and that it would be necessary to obtain the permission of the District Judge before any portion of the estate could be sold or mortgaged in order to raise money for the purpose in question.3. This application was opposed by her daughter Kallayani Dasi and one of her grandsons, Lal Behari Bysack. They alleged, in the first...
Rashmohini Dassi Vs. Woomesh Chunder Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal279
Pigot and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Nuddea directing that probate be granted of the will, dated the 25th Falgoon 1297 (8th March 1891), of Mohim Chunder Biswas of Bhabanipore, thanah Meherpore of that district.2. Mohim died on Cheyt 5th, 1297 (or March 18th 1891). The application for probate was made by Rashmohini Dassi, his widow, and Khettra Natt Chowdhry, who were named as executrix and executor in the document propounded as the will. It was filed on the 5th May 1891. Three other persons named therein as executors did not join in the petition for probate, and a few days after that petition was tiled, Khettra Nath filed a petition on May 18th renouncing the office of executor.3. Mohim left one child, a minor daughter, by his wife Rashmohini, a sister and a nephew, his sister's son, about 3 or 4 years old. He left two paternal uncles surviving him, the elder Tara Chand, an old man of about 80 years o1 age; the younger is Woomesh Chunder B...
Abdul Lotif Vs. Yousuff Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal255
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.1. The defendants, respondents in this case, are co-sharers in an estate, holding shares recorded separately, who defaulted in payment of Government revenue, and their shares were sold up. The plaintiff, appellant before us, purchased under the Revenue Sale Law of 1859. A suit was brought to set aside that sale by one only of the defaulters, and he obtained a decree; but he brought himself within the operation of Section 34 of the Revenue Sale Law of 1859, inasmuch as he failed to execute his decree within six months from the date thereof. He attempted to execute that decree in respect of costs, and execution was refused by reason of Section 34. The plaintiff, who was the purchaser, now sues to recover possession of the recorded share that be bought, and he obtained a decree in the Court of the Munsif. In appeal the District Judge has considered only one point, namely, the effect of the decree setting aside the sale, and whether the plaintiff, the sale having b...
Jiban Das Oswal and anr. Vs. Durga Pershad Adhikari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal252
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for mesne profits. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiffs' claim for a portion of the time for which mesne profits are sought to be recovered is barred as res judicata.2. On second appeal it is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the decision of the Lower Appellate Court is wrong. We do not think this contention is sound. In their suit for possession the plaintiff's claimed mesne profits in respect of the time between the date of dispossession and the date of suit, and the decree in that suit said nothing about the claim for mesne profits. In the present suit the plaintiffs claim mesne profits as well in respect of the period preceding the date of institution of the former suit as in respect of the period succeeding that date and extending up to the date of recovery of possession. The Court of Appeal below has held that the claim in respect of the former period is barred, but that in respect of the latter period is ...
Kristo Rangini Dasi Vs. Suresh Chunder Maitra, Chairman of Commissione ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal249
Prinsep and Banerjee, JJ.1. This suit as brought was cognizable by a Small Cause Court, and inasmuch as there was a Small Cause Court having jurisdiction in that particular locality, it should have been brought in that Court. Nevertheless the Munsif without any objection being raised tried the suit and dismissed it. The plaintiff appealed, and in the Court of the District Judge also no objection of this kind was raised; but the order of the Munsif was set aside and a decree was given for the plaintiff for damages, but in a sum smaller than that claimed.2. The defendant has now preferred a second appeal against the appellate decree. An objection is raised by the plaintiff that a second appeal would not lie by reason of Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the subject-matter of the original suit not exceeding 500 rupees. To this the defendant-appellant replies that the Courts below had no jurisdiction at all over the subject-matter of the suit, inasmuch as this suit should have be...
Ram Nath Chuckerbutty Vs. Kamini Kant Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal265
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to establish his right to sell the property in dispute in satisfaction of a decree against one Ram Mohun Roy, which he had purchased; and he alleged in his plaint that upon the attachment by him of the said property in execution of that decree, a claim was preferred by the defendant, upon which the property was released in May 1889.2. The defence was that the property did not belong to the judgment-debtor; that it belonged to the defendant; and that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit, as he had on a former occasion unsuccessfully instituted a similar suit against the defendant for obtaining a declaration that the property in question belonged to the judgment-debtor.3. The Courts below have overruled the objections raised by the defendant and found that the property belonged to the judgment-debtor of the plaintiff; and they have accordingly decreed the suit.4. On second appeal it is contended on behalf of the d...
Mahomed Bhoy Puddumsee Vs. Chutterput Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal854
Pigot, J.1. We think that in this case it is not necessary to call on Mr. Acworth. The principle to be applied is sufficiently expounded by Mr. Justice GIBBS in the case of Mitchel v. Lapage 1 Holt's Rep. 253.2. We think it quite clear that the learned Second Judge of the Small Cause Court is quite right in the view which he takes, and that our answer to the question put by him must be in the affirmative that there is a contract between the parties, for breach of which the plaintiff can sue for damages....
In Re: E. Mccomiskey, Deceased
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal879
Sale, J.1. I think the Administrator-General should not be required to verify otherwise than by his signature the statement as to the value of the assests likely to come to his hands, though such statement may be required for the purpose of obtaining a remission of Court fees under rule 697 of Belchambers' Rules and Orders, page 278. Section 16 of the Administrator-General's Act requires that every petition for administration under that Act should contain a statement as to the value of the assets likely to come into the petitioner's hands. That statement is sufficiently verified by his signature under Section 17 of the Act. It would be an extraordinary result if such statements were held to be sufficiently proved by signature only under the Act, and yet that the same statements should be required to be proved by affidavit for the purposes of the rule. I think the effect of the Act is to do away with the requirements of the rule so far as proof of the statement as to assets is concerned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›