Kolkata Court July 1894 Judgments
Prossonnamoyi Debya and ors. Vs. Shital Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal986
O'Kinealy and Hill, JJ. 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of the 24-Perganas. It arises out of an action under Section 30 of the Rent Law, seeking to enhance the rent of a tenant under Clause (a) of that section, which says that 'the landlord of a holding may sue for enhancement if the rate of rent paid by the ryot is below the prevailing rate paid by occupancy ryots for land of a similar description and with similar advantages in the same village, and that there is no sufficient reason for his holding at so low a rate.'2. In the Court below the Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving any prevailing rate; but upon the authority of a case of Dena Gazee v. Mohinee Mohun Doss 21 W.R. 157, he held that he might, in this particular case, take the average of the different rates current in the village and treat that as the prevailing rate. That, no doubt, was a peculiar case; but with the exception of that case, in all other case...
Tag this Judgment!Alliance Bank of Simla Vs. R. Joshua and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal185
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Norris and O'Kinealy, JJ.1. The appellants in this case are the sons of Mr. Joshua against whom a decree was given in the Court below which is now in appeal.2. Mrs. Joshua was married in May 1870, and in the following year she received certain Municipal debentures belonging to her father standing in the name of her brother. She then settled this property and appointed Mr. B.S. Gubboy and. her brother trustees to hold it for herself for life without anticipation, and afterwards for such persons as she should appoint by deed or will. The debentures were soon after sold, and their proceeds, together with Rs. 7,000 which were borrowed in 1872 from the brother of one of her trustees, Mr. Gubboy, were invested in house property in Calcutta. In 1878 Mrs. Joshua desired to release her brother Mr. Elias from his trust, and apparently was anxious to make an appointment in favour of her children, and the way she carried out this arrangement was the only way consistent wit...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Singh and ors. Vs. Kooldip Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal689
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly these: One Raja Singh and some other individuals brought a suit against Kooldip Narain Singh and others for recovery of possession of certain property, and obtained a decree in the Court of First Instance. The defendants appealed to the higher Court, but during the pendency of the appeal the plaintiffs took possession of the property in question in execution of the decree of the first Court. The appeal was ultimately decreed in favour of the defendants, and thereupon they were restored to possession; and they subsequently applied to the Court for recovery of mesne profits from the plaintiffs for the period during which the latter were unlawfully in possession.2. The contention that seems to have been raised in the Courts below was whether the defendants, decree-holders, were entitled to recover mesne profits from the plaintiffs in execution of the decree of the Appellate Court under Section 244 of the Code, o...
Tag this Judgment!Umbica Churn Sen and ors. Vs. Bengal Spinning and Weaving Company, Lim ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal105
Sale, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs obtained the usual order on summons in Chambers calling on the defendant company to show cause, why they should not produce for inspection of the plaintiffs the documents set forth in Part III of the schedule of the affidavit of documents of the defendant company, and why the documents should not be deposited with the Registrar of this Court, with liberty to the plaintiffs and their attorneys to inspect the same and to take copies thereof, and why the costs of the application should not be paid by the defendant company.2. In the affidavit of documents of the defendant company the documents, of which production and inspection are sought, are thus referred to: 'The defendant company also object to produce for inspection the documents set forth in the third part of the said schedule, because such documents were obtained after dispute arose and for the purposes of litigation that might arise between them and the plaintiffs.' Turning to Part III of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kissory Mohun Roy Vs. Kally Churn Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal100
Sale, J.1. The plaintiff in the present case is the first mortgagee of certain properties and the second mortgagee of the same and other properties. The third defendant is mortgagee of the properties comprised in the second mortgage The first defendant is the original mortgagor. The fourth defendant is the purchaser of the equity of redemption. The suit is for an account on the footing of the plaintiff's mortgage and for sale of the properties. At the hearing the third defendant appeared and proved his mortgage and asked that the payment of his claim should be provided for. The original mortgagor also appeared. The other defendant, the purchaser of the equity of redemption, did not appear. As between the parties appearing no question was raised as to the mortgages, and a decree was made for an account of what was due on each of the mortgages Six months time was allowed for payment of what should be found due on the several mortgages, and it was directed that in default of payment the p...
Tag this Judgment!Bama Sundari Dasi Vs. Adhar Chunder Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal28
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. The sole question that arises in this appeal is whether a certain payment made by the plaintiff in satisfaction of a decree obtained by the landlord against the defendants was a voluntary payment.2. The facts out of which this question arises are shortly these : A certain property, among others, belonged to one Nanda Kishore Mitter. He died leaving his widow Sudhamoyi Dasi and a daughter, the present plaintiff. Sudhamoyi Dasi, upon the death of Nanda Kishore, succeeded to the estate, and while she was in possession thereof, she sold the said property to the defendants. In Baisakh 1297 (B.S.) Sudhamoyi Dasi died, and the plaintiff inherited the estate as heiress of her father. In the year 1890, that is to say, in the same year that the plaintiff's mother died, a decree was obtained by the landlord against the defendants for the rent of the said property (it being a tenure held under him) and another property. The rent that was claimed, and the decree obtained by ...
Tag this Judgment!Portap Udai Nath Sahi Deo and anr. Vs. Masi Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal112
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this case, Maharajah Sri Pertap Udai Nath Sahi Deo, is the proprietor of mouza Arangi in the district of Chota Nagpore, and, as such proprietor, is entitled to hold certain lands as majhahas which, as the preamble to Bengal Act II of 1869 states, are lands reserved for the use of the proprietors of the villages and at their absolute disposal. The defendant Masi Das holds certain lands in the same village Arangi as bhuinhari, which are lands held by persons claiming to be descendants of the original founder of the village. The plaintiff's father Maharajah Juggernath Sahi Deo died in July 1869, and upon this event taking place, the zemindari of the plaintiff was taken charge of by the Court of Wards. When the estate was in the hands of the Court of Wards, a dispute arose before the Special Commissioner appointed under Bengal Act II of 1869 between the parties with regard to the lands which they were respectively entitled to hold as majhahas and bh...
Tag this Judgment!Behary Lall Trigunait Vs. Darby
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal915
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Rampini, J.1. We think that this rule must be made absolute, and that it is enough for us to say that it must be made absolute, because the persons interested are not before the Court. Mr. Darby, in whose favour this order has been made, in his written statement, states that the property in question belongs to a Coal Company, and that his position is that of a manager of the Company. He does not state that he has any interest except as manager and does not state that be has any independent, or in fact any, possession, except as representing the Company on whose behalf he is managing the mine. We do not think that that kind of possession is a possession such as is contemplated by this section, or, as 1 said just now, that the parties interested are properly before us. For these reasons we make the rule absolute....
Tag this Judgment!Wafadar Khan and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal955
Beverley, J.1. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of fourteen Kabulis, who have been convicted by a Jury in the Court of Session at Hooghly, of offences under Sections 148 and 325, read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, and the appeal is preferred on the ground that the verdict is vitiated by reason of misdirection by the Sessions Judge in his charge to the Jury.2. The fourteen appellants were committed to the Sessions Court upon the following charges: 'First, that you, on or about the 20th day of April 1894, at Bhadresar P. S., Serampore, committed murder by causing the death of Khan Ghalib, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognisance of the Court of Session. Secondly, that you, on or about the same day and at the same place by causing death of Khan Ghalib, committed culpable homicide, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognisance of...
Tag this Judgment!Nim Chand Baboo and ors. Vs. Jagabundhu Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal21
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a pledge of certain moveable property. The pledge in question was made on the 29th Magh 1293, corresponding to the 10th February 1887.2. The suit was instituted on the 14th December 1891, that is to say, within six years, but beyond three years, from the date of the pledge. The Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit upon the ground that it is barred under Article 57 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act; and the main question that we have to determine in this appeal is whether the case is governed by Article 57 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act.3. So far as the plaint prays for a decree for the money lent against the defendant personally, we are of opinion that it is barred under Article 57. That article runs as follows: 'For money payable for money lent: three years from the time that the loan is made '; and it seems to us that so far as the claim is for recovery of the money against the defendant, it falls ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »