Kolkata Court August 1895 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.
Gopal Sah Vs. Janki Koer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal217
Prinsep, J.1. The matter raised in this second appeal is whether execution of the decree obtained by the respondent is barred by limitation. Admittedly the decree-holder is entitled to three years from 15th December 1890, when the judgment-debtors' property was put up for sale, and the sale was postponed as there were no bidders; execution was afterwards abandoned. On 7th October 1893 application for execution was next made. It was then found that the particulars required by Section 235 of the Code had not been given, and the application was returned for amendment, one week being allowed' for that purpose after the re-opening of the Courts on the termination of the vacation, that is, one week from the 30th October 1893. The decree-holder did not comply with the order, and it was not until 10th January 1894 that he made a fresh application in proper form attaching to it his former incomplete application. If this be regarded as a fresh application, execution is barred by limitation. The ...
Surb NaraIn Singh Vs. Birj Mohun Thakur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal80
Macpherson, J.1. The matter in dispute in this case is the right to collect a four-anna share of the rent of a property which is undivided, Each of the two contending parties asserts a proprietary title to the share in question, and claims to be in possession by collecting from the tenants the rent payable in respect of it. The proprietors or the persons in possession of the remaining twelve-anna share are not parties to the case. The Magistrate has found that the first party is in possession, and has made an order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code maintaining him in possession.2. It is contended that this is not a dispute concerning tangible immoveable property, and that Section 145 does not apply to the case. Also that the Magistrate's decision rests really on his view of the rights of the parties.3. It does not appear to be disputed that Har Bullabh Narain Singh is entitled to and in possession of an eight-anna share of the mouzahs in question, and assuming that the T...
Jagat Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Kanto Prashad Hazari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal335
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents, to recover possession of some land as included within the permanently settled estate Taraf Joy Narain Ghosnl, which was purchased at a sale for arrears of Government revenue by their lessors, and of which they alleged that they held a sudder putni. The defence of the principal defendant Kanto Prashad Hazari was that the land did not form any part of the permanently settled estate Taraf Joy Narain Ghosal; that it was a part of the bed of the river Sankho; that on the river being silted up the land was measured and settled by Government with him; and that it had ever since remained in his possession, and the plaintiffs' title, if any, was consequently barred by limitation. In support of his allegations the defendant put in a, map prepared by Babu Jagabundhu Sen, Deputy Collector, in the year 1869, and the first Court, after a local investigation, came to the conclusion that a portion of the disputed la...
Pakhwanti Dai Vs. Indra NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal201
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge by which he has removed the respondent from the guardianship of the person of a minor and directed him while continuing to be the guardian of his property to pay a certain sum of money towards the maintenance of the ward. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Hill for the respondent that this order is not appealable within the terms of Section 47 of the guardians and Warns Act 1890, not being an order within the terms of Clause (g) removing a guardian under Section 39. The appeal is not against the order removing the guardian in respect of the person of the minor for that is in favour of the appellant, but it is really an appeal against he order of the District Judge refusing to remove him from the guardianship of the manor's property. Mr. Jackson contends on behalf of the appellant that the order must be regarded as a whole, and that in that respect it is appealable within the terms of Section 47...
Mon Mohini Goopta Vs. Raghoonath Misser and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal209
Pigot, J.1. In this case, by a pottah, dated the 29th Assar 1293, a mouzah was let to the plaintiff-appellant, by the defendants who are the zemindars to whom the mouzah belonged. The mouzah was let by name and with a description of its boundaries; it was let at a yearly rent of Rs. 18-12 annas, which amount was arrived at after deducting Rs. 11-4 annas from the annual jama of Rs. 30, that deduction being a deduction made in respect of a six annas share out of sixteen annas of the mouzah which the pottah expresses to be given as remuneration for the lessee's labour in reclaiming the land. The lands are jungle lands. The appellant and, as she alleges, her deceased husband, who was the lessee under this pottah, have been in the habit of cutting the wood in the jungle for the purpose of clearing the land for cultivation and of appropriating the trees or growth so cleared to their own purpose. The zemindars, the defendants, as landlords have lately begun to dispute the right of the lessee ...
Ramoo Mahton and anr. Vs. Bhatoo Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal189
Pigot and Stevens, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiffs claim from the defendant a sum of money, being what they say is the proportion of the rent claimed in a suit in which an exparte decree was obtained, an amount which is proportionate to the interest which the defendant had in the tenure, a dur-mokurari tenure, in which it is difficult to suppose that the defendant had not some, and indeed & considerable, interest. The plaintiffs had a four annas interest in this tenure, and they allege that the defendant had a twelve annas interest in it, although he was not the recorded tenant, but the person from whom he had purchased so far back as 1290 still had his name recorded as tenant. As we have said, there was an exparte decree for rent due; it was for rent due for the years 1295 to 1298, and execution being taken out by the person who was the holder of the decree against two annas out of the plaintiffs' four annas share in the tenure, the plaintiffs paid the entire amount of the decree; t...
Puran Chand Vs. Beni Parshad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal262
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. The subject-matter of this suit is a three annas four dams share of mouza Simrora Boreni. This mouza, with various other properties, originally belonged to one Murl Mhar, the common ancestor of the parties to the suit. A genealogical table of the family is set out at page 6 of the printed paper-book. It appears that Murlidhar died in the year 1224 F.S. (1817), leaving a widow, Rup Dai, and four sons : Rai Bishnath, Rai Gunga Bishen, Rai Luchmi Narain and Rai Kunjbehari Lal. Gunga Bishen died in 1254 (1847), leaving four sons : Rai Bholi Prasad, Rai Chet Bahadur alias Sheo Prasad, Rai Deoki Nandan and Rai Gauri Sankar. Luchmi Narain died childless in 1258(1851), leaving a widow, Mussamat Ayodbya Dai; Kunjbehari Lal also died childless in 1260 (1853), leaving a widow Mussamat Ratan Dai; and Rai Bishnath died in 1262 (1855), leaving two sons : Rai Rasbehari Lal and Rai Bissessur Nath. The widow of Murlidhar, namely, Mussamat Rup Dai, died in 1264 F.S. (1857). It w...
Dukhi Mullah and ors. Vs. Halway, Proprietor of Manjhaul Factory Throu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal55
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case the first party claimed the right to fish in a certain jhil or lake; the second party, within the limits of whose estate or tenure the jhil is partly situated, denied that right; and the Magistrate, being satisfied that the dispute between the parties was likely to cause a breach of the peace, instituted a proceeding under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and ha, has made an order under that section permitting the first party to exercise their right of fishing until the second party obtain a decision of a competent Civil Court authorising them to stop the fishing. This order we are asked by this reference under Section 438 of the Code to set aside.2. No one appeared before us in support of the original order; but Mr. Hyde, who appeared for the second party, was heard in support of the reference. The grounds on which we are asked to set aside the order are, first, that there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace arising out of ...
Surjoo Das Vs. Balmakund Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal212
Prinsep, J.1. The appellant gave security within the terms of Section 546 of the Civil Procedure Code for the due performance of the decree of the Appellate Court in regard to such restitution as might become necessary if the order under appeal were reversed by the High Court. The judgment of the Appellate Court was set aside, and so the appellant before us has become liable under the terms of his bond, and it is sought to realise the amount due by means of execution of the decree in the suit. Objection has been raised that the appellant before us cannot be held liable except through a decree in a suit properly brought against him, and that no proceeding as against him can be taken in execution of decree. The Subordinate Judge has overruled that objection, relying on the cases of Venkapa Naik v. Baslingapa I.L.R. 12 Bom. 411 and Thirumalai v. Ramayyar I.L.R. 13 Mad. 1. Of these two cases, the one in the Bombay Court is alone expressly in point, and we may observe with reference to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›