Kolkata Court May 1894 Judgments
Hari Kishore Mitra and ors. Vs. Abdul Baki Miah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal920
William Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The Maharajah of Nattore and Rani Hemanta Kumari Devi are the owners of forests in the Sub-Division of Tangail, which adjoin each other, and there have been for a long time disputes between them, and the persons who claim under them, as to the boundary line between their properties, which have from time to time led to the institution of criminal proceedings. On the 27th November 1893, Abdul Baki Miah, a servant of the Maharajah, laid a complaint before Babu Shib Chunder Nag, Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tangail, charging the petitioners, who are tenants and servants of the Rani, with having, on the 25th and 26th of the same month, been guilty of the offences of rioting, criminal trespass, mischief and theft. The complainant was examined on oath before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who on the same day made an order that there were questions of right of all sorts connected with the disputes, and that the complainant should prove his case first on the 9th o...
Tag this Judgment!Nafar Chandra Pal Chowdhuri and ors. Vs. Ram Lal Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal742
Hill, J.1. The question raised is whether the Subordinate Judge has properly awarded damages to the plaintiffs, who are zemindars, in respect of the conversion of certain mango trees which were out down on their holdings and sold by the defendants, who are raiyats with rights of occupancy.2. The rules were obtained on the ground that, regard being had to the provisions of Section 23 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the Subordinate Judge had improperly imposed on the defendants the burden of showing that they were entitled to cut down and appropriate the trees. Mr. Woodrofte, who appeared for the plaintiffs to show cause, contended, in answer, that, on the proper construction of the section, it lay primarily on the defendants to justify the felling of the trees as an act necessary for the purposes of the cultivation of the holdings, and that only when this had been established could the question arise whether they were precluded by custom from cutting them down; He further argued that, assumi...
Tag this Judgment!ishri Mul and ors. Vs. GoasaIn Chutturbhooj Dut and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal844
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff's under the following circumstances:2. A revenue-paying estate called mehal Sonbursa was jointly owned by a number of proprietors, three sets of whom appear to have opened, under Section 10 of Act XI of 1859, separate accounts in the Collector's Register for the payment of their respective shares of the Government revenue. The plaintiffs, who were the proprietors of the remaining share of the estate, were liable for the share of the revenue in respect thereof.3. A default having been made in the payment of the March instalment of the revenue due for the share belonging to the plaintiffs, it was advertized by the Collector under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act for sale on the 18th of September 1890.4. On the 16th of September the plaintiffs paid into the Collectorate the amount due and received a chalan or receipt therefor. No order, however, was made by the Collector under Section 18 exempting the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chunder Sanyal Vs. Sarnamoyi Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal354
Norris and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, appellant, who claims to be the nearest reversionary heir to one Madhub Chunder Sanyal, after the death of Madhub Chunder Sanyal's widow Sarnamoyi Debi, defendant No. 1, for a declaration that a deed of relinquishment of her life-estate executed by Sarnamoyi on the 25th Aughran 1296 in favour of the then next reversioner Radhika Nath Bhaduri, the husband of defendant No. 2, and a deed of gift executed by the said Radhika Nath Bhaduri on the same date in favour of Sarnamoyi in respect of one-half of the said estate, are inoperative and void as against the plaintiff.2. The defence was that the plaintiff, a contingent reversioner, was not entitled to maintain a suit like this in the lifetime of the widow, and that the deeds in question were operative and valid.3. The Court below, whilst holding that the plaintiff, as the next reversionary heir, was entitled to maintain a suit like this, has dismissed his...
Tag this Judgment!Ajudhia Pershad Vs. Baldeo Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal818
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. The parties to this proceeding stand to each other in the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee. The mortgagors are three in number ; they had borrowed from the mortgagee a considerable sum of money ; and a suit was brought upon the mortgage, and, in the course of the suit, a compromise was entered into between the parties. Under this compromise, each of the mortgagors agreed to pay to the mortgagee the sum of Rs. 4,000 by certain instalments; and it was provided that as security for the sum payable by each mortgagor, a third share of the properties already mortgaged should continue to be in mortgage, and that in the event of any of the mortgagors committing default in three consecutive instalments, the mortgagee should be entitled to realise the money payable by such mortgagor by sale of his share of the properties mortgaged. A decree was accordingly made in those terms. Subsequently the mortgagee, by reason of the default committed by the mortgagors in paying th...
Tag this Judgment!Roghu Singh Vs. Misri Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal825
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. We think that the learned District Judge was right in holding that no appeal lay against an order setting aside a sale under Section 173 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The order in question could not be regarded as a 'decree' as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure, nor could it fall within Section 244 of that Code, because the appellant was an outsider, and not a party to the suit in which the decree was made. The Bengal Tenancy Act itself does not provide for an appeal against an order like this, and we are not aware of any provision in the Civil Procedure Code allowing an appeal against such an order.2. That being so, this appeal will be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Satcowri Ghosh Mondal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal252
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. The dispute in this case relates to a portion of the river Khari. The plaintiff, as the se-putnidar of a property Dhoba, a revenue-paying estate, claims it as a part of his property. The defendants to the suit are the Secretary of State, and certain other individuals with whom the Collector of Burdwan has made a settlement of the jalkar of the said river. Their defence is that the river is tidal and navigable and is Government property; that the Government have always exercised proprietary right in it, and that therefore the plaintiff can have no claim to it. The Court of First Instance gave a decree to the plaintiff, being of opinion that the portion of the river in question is a part of the permanently settled property Dhoba, and in coming to this conclusion relied especially upon the thakbust map of Dhoba in 1855.2. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge has reversed the decree of the Court of First Instance upon the ground that the bed of the river, it being tidal...
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Nath Das Vs. Karmi Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal244
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This was a suit for assessment of rent. The facts which led up to it are thus clearly stated in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge: 'The plaintiff-appellant was one of the proprietors of the estate in which the land sought to be assessed to rent is situated. The estate was in 1885 sold for arrears of Government revenue and purchased by one Prosonno Kumar Shamant and the plaintiff repurchased it from Prosonno Kumar Shamant in 1886. He applied under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the measurement of the mehal and the preparation of a record of rights, and a Revenue Officer was deputed to make the measurement and prepare a record of rights. The land to which the suit relates was found by the Revenue Officer to form the slope of an old embankment and as such to be mal, land. But as no rent, it was found, was over paid for it, it was entered as mal land held by the defendant as lakhiraj under colour of certain sanads. The plaintiff appealed to the Special ...
Tag this Judgment!Prosonnomoyi Dassi Vs. Sreenauth Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal809
Sale, J.1. This is an application as to the disposition of a fund representing the balance of the sale-proceeds of the premises No. 22 Strand Road, which was paid into Court to the credit of the two abovementioned suits under an order, dated the 14th September 1893. The circumstances under which this fund was paid into Court are as follows:2. The plaintiff Prosonnomoyi obtained a decree in the first suit, dated 6th December 1886, for the sum of Rs. 2,14,728 with interest and costs against Sreenauth Roy, Sumbhoonauth Roy and Gopinauth Roy.3. In February 1887 the plaintiff, in execution of the decree, attached various properties, including the premises No. 22 Strand Road, which were sub-jeot to certain trusts created by an Indenture, dated 2nd February 1858, executed by the father of the judgment-debtors. At that time a suit No. 448 of 1883 was pending, wherein the judgment-debtors as plaintiffs sought for a declaration of what were the valid trusts under the Indenture of Trust, and that...
Tag this Judgment!Khetterpal Sritirutno Vs. Khelal Kristo Bhuttacharjee and by Revivor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal904
Sale, J.1. This application is free from doubt except so far as it seeks to affect the plaintiff in the mortgage suit.2. The facts are briefly as follows: Khetterpal Sritirutno and Khelal Kristo Bhuttacharjee were joint owners of certain properties.3. On the 11th of January 1886 Khetterpal Sritirutno executed a mortgage of his undivided share in most of these properties in favour of Sristidhur Couch to secure the repayment of a loan obtained from him. In 1887 Khetterpal brought this suit against his co-owner for an account and partition and obtained a decree, dated 27th April 1888, under which a commission of partition was issued. The Commissioner's return is dated 24th February 1892. In the course of the proceedings both the original plaintiff and the original defendant died, and there was considerable delay in reviving the suit.4. On the 20th July 1893 an order was obtained confirming the return and charging the costs of suit and of the partition upon the properties, the subject of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »