Kolkata Court February 1894 Judgments
Ashutosh Chatterjee Vs. Golap Chand Nowlakha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal602
O'Kinealy and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. In this case Ashutosh Chatterjee applied to the Court under Section 158 of the Rent Act to have the nature of a large number of tenancies determined in one suit. In other words, he asked the Civil Court to do what the law declares in Section 103 to be the peculiar duty of the revenue authorities.2. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that Section 158 only referred to particular cases, and did not justify such an application. The District Judge, however, was of opinion that the section should be literally construed, and that the proceeding should be allowed. We think the Legislature did not contemplate that the several causes of action should be lumped up together. There is no procedure known to our law that recognizes the right to bring batches of suits in one claim. We direct that the decree of the lower Court be set aside, and that of the first Court affirmed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Nanku Ram and anr. Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal339
Norris and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, respondents, for possession of two-thirds of two houses with mesne profits, on the allegation that the houses belonged to one Ram Saran Ram; that on Ram Saran Ram's death the two plaintiffs and their brother defendant No. 2, as Ram Saran Ram's mother's sister's sons and his nearest heirs, became entitled to the same in equal shares; and that defendant No. 1, setting up a purchase from defendant No. 2, has been keeping the plaintiffs out of possession of their two-thirds share.2. Defendant No. 2 did not enter appearance, but defendant No. 1 defended the suit, urging, among other matters, not necessary now to consider, that the plaintiffs were not the heirs of Ram Saran Ram; that they were not related to him as they alleged, their mother Sonia and Ram Saran Ram's mother Keola not being sisters, but being cousins, that is, daughters respectively of one Hardoyal and his sister Anandi, as shewn in the gen...
Tag this Judgment!Thompson Vs. Calcutta Tramways Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal523
Sale, J.1. (After stating the facts and stating that the conclusion to which he had come rendered it unnecessary to direct the issue of notice to the defendant Company to show cause against the application), continued:2. It is suggested that as the finding of the Appellate Court did not in terms coincide with the finding of the Original Court as to contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and as the value of the suit is alleged to be over Rs. 10,000, the plaintiff is entitled to obtain a certificate on the authority of the case of In the matter of the petition of Ashghar Reza I.L.R. 16 Cal. 287.3. In that case the Appellate Court differed from the lower Court as to the effect of an ikrarnama, and decided the case upon an issue not raised in the lower Court. There were also points of law involved in that case.4. In the present case the issue of fact was the same in both Courts. The findings of fact in both Courts are also in effect the same, namely, that the plaintiff had f...
Tag this Judgment!Kanye Lall Dass Vs. Shama Churn Dawn
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal566
Sale, J.1. This is an application by the purchaser at a Registrar's sale for liberty to pay into Court the balance of the purchase-money. The only question is what order should be made regarding the payment of interest on the purchase-money, the period for payment of the balance of the purchase-money having expired before the application for leave to pay it in was made.2. It appears that, by the conditions of sale, the purchaser was required to pay a deposit of 25 per cent, on the purchase-money at the time of the sale, and to pay the balance within one month from the day of sale, and, in default of payment within one month from the day of sale, to pay such balance with interest at 12 per cent, from the end of one month from the day of sale until payment.3. It is also required by the conditions that the Registrar's certificate as to the result of the sale should be filed within eight days after the sale, the purchaser being at liberty to file it if the party having the carriage of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Das Kundu Chowdhry and ors. Vs. W. Stalkartt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal680
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs for arrears of rent for the years 1294,1295, 1296 and three quarters of 1297. The defence was that the rent for this period had been paid into Court under Section 61 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, because the tenant entertained a bond fide doubt as to who was entitled to receive the money. The defendant said that the rent was payable yearly, and that the rent for 1297 was paid into Court shortly after the suit was brought, viz., at the close of the year 1297. 2. The Munsif found as a fact that the defendant had a bond fide doubt as to who was entitled to receive the rent, and was not to blame for the litigation, and he held that the deposits must be taken as sufficient payment, and that this amounted to an acquittance for the rent due, and he gave the plaintiffs a decree for the whole amount of rent and for interest on the ground that the rent was payable quarterly and for the costs of the suit in respect of the rent f...
Tag this Judgment!Tincouri Debya Vs. Shib Chandra Pal Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal639
Prinsep, J.1. The proceedings now before us relate to a sale held in execution of a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Nuddea. The suit was brought on a mortgage bond, by which certain properties which had been brought to sale were hypothecated, some of these properties being situated beyond the ordinary local jurisdiction of that Court. The Subordinate Judge had full jurisdiction to deal with such a case and to pass a decree in respect of such properties. The appeal now before us is from an order of the Subordinate Judge refusing to set aside the sale held in execution of that decree.2. Two points are raised in this appeal: first, that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to sell certain properties beyond his ordinary local jurisdiction, although they may form part of the decree properly delivered by him under which the sale has been held, inasmuch as such properties being situated in another district, the sale of these properties should have been held by the Court having ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Prem Chand Moonshee, Deceased
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal484
Sale, J.1. This is an application under Section 596 of the Civil Procedure Code for a certificate to enable the applicants to appeal to Her Majesty in Council. A notice under Section 600 was issued to the opposite parties who have appeared and opposed the application.2. The suit was brought by the respondents in the Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction of the Court to establish the will of Prem Chand Moonshee.3. The defendants, claiming to be the heirs of Prem Chand Moonshee, impugned the genuineness of the document propounded by the plaintiffs as the will of the deceased. The learned Judge in the Original Court, in an elaborate judgment, upheld the will. An appeal was preferred by the defendants. In the result the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Original Court affirmed, the reasons upon which the learned Judge in the Original Court proceeded being approved and adopted by the Appellate Court.4. It appears that in the course of the hearing of the appeal an application wa...
Tag this Judgment!Rattan Koer Vs. Chotay NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal476
ORDERW. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, JJ.1. This is an application on behalf of the respondent in an appeal for a certificate by this Court that the note of the Bench Clerk which is printed in the paper book has a particular limited meaning only. Neither of us has any note of the matter to which the application referred, and we have not, nor has the Bench Clerk, any recollection of the circumstances under which the note came to be made by the Bench Clerk, but the note as printed is a copy of the note which appears in his book, The reasons given by the respondents why the note should bear the limited meaning they seek to place upon it are reasons arising from the nature of the case and of the contentions on either side, and when the whole matter is before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee they will be in a position to deal with them. Let these remarks be sent with the case to the Privy Council....
Tag this Judgment!Durga Churn Laskar and ors. Vs. Hari Churn Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal521
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Prinsep, J.1. This is a matter under Section 102 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in which the Revenue Officer was making a record of fights of a certain estate. The matter in dispute between the parties was as to who should be recorded as tenants of these particular lands, the plaintiff's contending that they held a half share with the defendants; the defendants, on the other hand, stating that they were the sole tenants. Before any record of rights could be prepared, it was absolutely necessary for the Revenue Officer to ascertain, in the first place, who were actual tenants of these particular lands. He proceeded under Section 107 to try the matter in dispute as therein directed, and his order in favour of the defendants was taken in appeal to the Special Judge under Section 108. The Special Judge, however, has refused to try the appeal holding that the proceedings were entirely without jurisdiction because the record of rights had not been published in the mann...
Tag this Judgment!Subha Bibi Vs. Hara Lal Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal519
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. The only real question for our decision is whether the terms of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure bar the suit. As against the appellant's contention there are to be found at least three reported cases of this Court, Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das I.L.R. 12 Cal. 204, Seetanath Ghose v. Madhub Narain Roy Chowdhry 1 W.R. 329, and a third case, not so much in point, Khyrat Ali v. Syfullah Khan 8 W.R. 130. There are also against the appellant's contention two Allahabad cases, Sohun Lall v. Lala Gya Pershad 6 N.W. 265, and Puran Mal. v. Ali Khan I.L.R. 1 All. 285.2. It is true that the appellant has in his favour a very recent case--Rama Kurup v. Sridevi I.L.R. 16 Mad. 290--in which the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the case of Kanizak Sukina v. Monohur Das I.L.R. 12 Cal. 204, was wrong; but in that case the learned Judges do not seem to have been referred to any of the other decisions.3. Before we could give effect to the appellants' conte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »