Kolkata Court May 1895 Judgments
Gopi Nath Bagdi and ors. Vs. Ishur Chundra Bagdi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal800
Pigot, J.1. As to the general principle upon which the learned pleader for the appellants stated the case to us, we think we are bound by the case of Kinu Ram Das v. Mozaffer Hosain Shaha I.L.R. 14 Cal. 809 which we are unable to distinguish in principle from the case made on behalf of the appellants; and we think that a payment of a nature so peculiar as that under Section 174 would need some indication in the Act itself in connection with that section before we should feel at liberty to accede to the appellants' contention by declaring that, besides their right to contribution personally, they had also a right to a charge on the property so far as the shares of their co-tenants are concerned for the amount paid by them under the provisions of that section. There is nothing in the section which contemplates any such right or privilege on the part of the person paying, and we do not think we should add such a provision as that to Section 174.2. We therefore dismiss the appeal with cost...
Tag this Judgment!Aghore Kali Debi Vs. Prosunno Coomar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal827
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. The questions here are : (a) whether an application to the Court by a decree-holder, who has himself purchased some of his debtor's property at an auction sale, to receive the amount of poundage from him, is an application made in accordance with law to the proper Court to take some step in aid of execution of the decree; and (b) whether an application by him to a Court, to which his decree has been sent for execution and which has realized a portion of the debt to give him the decree as he requires it for taking out execution in the Court of another Munsif, is such an application.2. The learned District Judge has answered the first question in the negative, and, as we agree with him, it is not necessary for us to say more on that point. He has, however, answered the second question in the affirmative, and in that answer we are unable to agree.3. When a decree, which has been sent by the Court which passed it to another Court for execution, ha...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Sunkur Panday Vs. Aubhoyessury Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal859
Norris and Gordon, JJ.1. The Subordinate Judge's judgment is as follows: 'The decree passed by the High Court on the 29th of May 1893 for Rs. 1,68,122-15-0 against Ranee Aubhoyessury; Dabee has been sent to this Court for execution under Section 223 of the Civil Procedure Code. Execution has been taken out for Rs. 31,077, which amount represents the sum due on account of instalments and interest up to date after deducting sums paid. The judgment-debtor is represented by Counsel and so is the judgment-creditor. The judgment-debtor has objected to an execution order on the ground that the consent decree in the High Court created a charge on the estate of the judgment-debtor, and that a charge having thus been created, the judgment-creditor is precluded from proceeding to execution, but is bound to file a fresh suit under Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882). In fact Counsel urges that the judgment-creditor is in the same position since the consent decree was passed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Dunia Lal Seal Vs. Gopi Nath Khetry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal820
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of 24-Pergunnahs apportioning the compensation money awarded for a plot of land, 9 Mullick's Street, Calcutta, acquired under Act X of 1870, for the construction of the Harrison Road.2. The appellant is the owner of the land in question, and the respondents represent tenants under him who had erected masonry buildings on portions of the land. The tenants claimed before the Collector the value of their respective interests in the land, but as the owner claimed to be entitled to the entire compensation-money, the matter was referred to the Judge under Section 39 of the Act. The Judge has awarded to the respondents the value of the buildings which stood on the portions of the land occupied by them, and against this decree the owner appeals.3. It is proved by the evidence that the respondents, or their predecessors in interest, have occupied portions of the land for many years, paying rent ther...
Tag this Judgment!Prosunno Kumar Adhikari and ors. Vs. Saroda Prosunno Adhikari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal989
Pigot and Stevens, JJ.1. In this case we think the appeal must succeed.2. The lease granted by the ancestor of the plaintiffs to one of his co-shebaits, the validity of which is challenged in these proceedings, has been held to be bad, inasmuch as it was a mokurari lease granted without any legal necessity by the shebait of an endowment, the grant of which has been clearly made out. But in the judgment of the lower Court, and the decree founded upon that, the mourasi character of the lease has been preserved, so that the permanent character of the alienation of the property of the endowment lasts, although as to rent the character of the original lease was modified by striking out the mokurari provision of it, and making the lease liable to enhancement. But we think in allowing the validity of the lease, in so far as it gave a mourasi title, the Court below was in error. There are cases in which a shebait or manager is justified in alienating a portion of the property of the endowment;...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Watkins and ors. Vs. N. Fox and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal943
Hill, J.1. This is a suit by a firm of solicitors carrying on business under the style of Watkins and Co., and the legal representative of Mr. Algernon F. N. Watkins, a deceased member of the firm, for the recovery of the costs of certain proceedings in this Court, under Section 24 of Act XY of 1859. The object of those proceedings was to effect the revocation of a patent held by two persons, named Thomson and Mylne, for a sugar-crushing machine.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the first defendant, Mr. Neil Fox, consulted their firm so far back as the year 1885, with respect to the revocation of Messrs. Thomson and Mylne's patent, representing that he did so, not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of other persons, who were interested in getting the patent set aside, and that in pursuance of his instructions the proceeding mentioned above was instituted on the 26th May 1887. In consequence, however, of the circumstance that Mr. Neil Fox was himself a licensee under the patent it...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Lall Mondal and ors. Vs. Umar Haji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal877
Norris, J.1. This appeal from appellate decree was heard by Ghose and Rampini, JJ., and those learned Judges having differed in opinion on a point of law the appeal has, under the provisions of Section 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 587, been referred to me by order of the Chief Justice.2. The suit was for damages 'for misappropriation of paddy,' and the material portion of the plaint, which was filed on 30th November 1891, was as follows:1. The plaintiff owns several lakhiraj and mal lands in villages Bhagobutipur and Bhownanipur, within the jurisdiction of this Court. He holds possession thereof by cultivating the same and enjoying the crops thereof.2. The defendants wrongfully and forcibly reaped and misappropriated the paddy grown in the year 1295 on 64 bighas 2 cottas of land, as per schedule, out of the said lands from the 17th Aughran up to the month of Magh that year. The plaintiff, therefore, brings this suit, and praya that a decree may be passed in his...
Tag this Judgment!Pudmanund Singh Bahadur and ors. Vs. Chundi Dutt Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal928
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. This is an application for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council against an order of a Division Bench of this Court refusing the plaintiff in the suit the appointment of a Receiver in the terms required by him.2. The application is opposed, and we have had considerable argument addressed to us as to whether this is a proper matter in which a certificate can be granted within the terms of Section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which embodies the provisions of Sections 39 and 40 of the Letters Patent, 1866.3. In order to entitle a party to a certificate under Clauses (a) and (b), Section 595 of the Code, or Section 39 of the Letters Patent, it is necessary, in a matter of this description, that the order passed shall be a final decree, which, under the definition given in Section 594 of the Code, may be a final judgment and order. It is contended by Mr. Hill, who appears for the petitioner, that the order of the Division Bench of this Court comes with...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Sircar and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal757
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. Several questions have been raised in this case, among them being the question whether certain documents are properly stamped. If that question is answered in favour of the accused persons, it will not be necessary to consider the others.2. The documents in question are written in the account books of a firm of bankers or money-lenders, and are in the following form:One anna Stamp.Sri Nimai ChandraBiswas of PuranagramRs. Seventy only.Account of Sri Nimai Chandra Biswas of Puranagram. Payments : Amounts due :Advance, 19th Assin 1301, through self in cash Rs. 75-0. Rupees seventy-five is taken by me as loan. I shallWitnesses : pay interest on it at the rate of Re. 1-0Sri Hem Chandra Mukhopadhya of one per cent per mensem. Bajitpur (writer), Sri Kisori Mohan Ghose of Harisara.'3. The question is whether these writings are bonds within the meaning of Section 3, Sub-section 4, Clause (b) of the Stamp Act, or acknowledgments of debts within the mean...
Tag this Judgment!MahalabuddIn and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal761
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. We think that in this case the rule must be discharged. The question is a very simple question of law, and is, whether a Magistrate, to whom a seizure of property by the Police has been reported, under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as property which they suspect to have been stolen, is justified in detaining the property and issuing a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation, until he has first called upon the person in whose possession the property was when it was seized to show cause why this should not be done.2. The case has been argued before us by Mr. Barrow for the petitioners, but we think that he failed to show anything on the face of these sections which imposes any such obligation on the Magistrate. The duty of the Magistrate, when the matter is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »