Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal723
W. Comer Petheram, C.J., Macpherson, Trevelyan, Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. The question which forms the subject of this reference is whether when a number of tenants occupying land under the same landlord have been joined as defendants in the same proceeding for the settlement of rents under Section 104, Clause 2 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and an appeal has been preferred to the Special Judge under Section 108, Clause 2, from the Revenue Officer's decision, making all, or nearly all, the tenants respondents, one Court fee of Rs. 10 is payable, or whether as many Court fees of Rs. 10 each as there are tenant-defendants should be paid. The Special Judge in the Court below held the latter view, and dismissed the appeal, as the proper amount of Court fee payable according to him was not paid.2. On behalf of the petitioners it has been urged that as by Rule 25, * Chapter VI of the Government Rules under the Tenancy Act, the landlords were entitled to make a joint application, and as they pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal790
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. The facts which it is necessary to narrate for the purpose of determining the questions which we have to decide in this appeal are as follows: On the 21st June 1886 the first defendant mortgaged to the plaintiff, for the purpose of securing the sum of two thousand rupees with interest at 24 per cent, per annum, one pucca house and a second house, partly pucca and partly cutgha, and the land upon which those houses stand, and a 2 annas and 8 gundas 2 dunts share in Mouza Chapra Harchand. On the 17th August 1886 the first defendant mortgaged to the father of the second defendant the -pucca house above mentioned. It is admitted that when this second mortgage was executed the mortgagee had no notice of the first mortgage, except so far as the fact that the first mortgage was registered can be said to have given him notice of it. On the 30th July 1887, the second defendant's father obtained a mortgage decree against the first defendant. On the 21st June 1889 th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal699
Macpherson, J.1. This appeal relates only to taluk Indra Narain Chowdhry in respect of which the plaintiff has obtained a decree. The defendant, who is the appellant before us, does not contest the correctness of the decision as regards taraf Abdur Kader. The plaintiff's case is that this taluk was sold at an execution sale in April 1882, and purchased by the plaintiff with his own money through the defendant, who fraudulently got his name registered as the auction-purchaser. He asserts that he has been in continuous and undisturbed possession since his purchase; and that a misunderstanding having now arisen between himself and the defendant his nephew, the latter has now commenced interfering with the tenants. The plaintiff, therefore, asks in this suit that his right may be declared and possession confirmed, and that the defendant may be restrained from interfering with the tenants. It has been found that the plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the taluk since his purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal679
Beverley, J.1. This was a suit for the partition of a revenue-paying estate mouza Kazi Chuck, rakba Macharam Katarwa, being No. 3237 on the touzi of the Gya Collectorate, and bearing a sudder jumma of Rs. 100. The plaintiff, having purchased a 9 annas share of this estate from the defendant, found some difficulty in collecting his rents, and he accordingly applied to the Civil Court to have his share of the estate partitioned and separated by metes and bounds. The defendant did not appear, and the Court having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for partition, appointed a Commissioner to make that partition, and ultimately on the 18th of December 1893 directed that the plaintiff should be put into possession of the 9 annas share as defined by the Commissioner.2. It is objected before us on appeal by the defendant that under Section 265 of the Civil Procedure Code the learned Subordinate Judge had no power to appoint a Commissioner to make a partition of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal713
Ameer Ali, J.1. Mr. Dunne, on behalf of the plaintiff, contends that, though the consideration for the assignment was only Rs. 2,750, yet, inasmuch as the defendant has not brought himself within the provisions of Section 135 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff is entitled to the full amount that may be found due on the mortgage and further charge. His contention in substance is that, unless the defendant pays into Court before the hearing the amount for which the assignment is made, together with all costs and incidental expenses, the defendant is not entitled to the relief under Section 135 of the Transfer of -Property Act.2. [After considering the evidence the learned Judge continued.] 'Section 135 of the Transfer of Property Act provides as follows :;-Where an actionable claim is sold, he against whom it is made is wholly discharged by paying to the buyer the price and incidental expenses of the sale, with interest on the price from the day that the buyer paid it.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal604
O'Kinealy and Banerjee, JJ.1. The appellant, Kader Nasyer, was tried before the Sessions Court of Rungpur on a charge of murder for causing the death of a boy named Abdul, aged about eight years. His plea was that he 'was mad when he strangled the boy.' The two assessors were both, for acquitting him on the ground of unsoundness of mind, but the learned Sessions Judge disagreeing with them has convicted him of murder and sentenced him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to transportation for life.2. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal: First, whether the appellant killed the boy; and, second, whether, if he did so, he is guilty of murder, or is entitled to be acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind.3. The evidence for the prosecution consists of the depositions of Jalad Mahomed, the father of the boy Abdul, Kakum and Khanullab, two neighbours, and Gopal Chunder Chowdhury, the Police Head Constable, examined before the Sessions Court, of two depositions of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal592
Sale, J.1. This is an application by the Delhi and London Bank to be allowed to rank as a preferential creditor of the insolvent Ambrose Summers who was a trader and carried on business in Calcutta, Rangoon and Simla the object of the bank being to obtain payment in priority of a sum of Rs. 8,729-7-3 representing the sale proceeds of the stock-in-trade of the insolvent.2. The insolvent filed his petition on the 22nd August 1895 Subsequently by arrangement the stock-in-trade of the insolvent was sold by the office by arrangement the stock in trade of the insolvent was sold by the Official Assignee; who now holds the sale proceeds subject to the order of this Court.3. The claim of the bank consists of two sums, namely, Rs. 57,802-8-6 due or principal and interest on a promissory note executed by the insolvent in favour of the bank on the 31st December 1889, and Rs. 8,685-3- due on the insolvent's overdrawn current account with the bank.4. The claim of the bank to rank as a creditor in re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal693
Macpherson, J.1. The plaintiff having obtained against the ten defendants a decree under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for the possession of 22 plots, comprising 1 khada 14 pakhis of land, which he claims to hold under a jote right, brought this suit to obtain from them a sum. of Rs. 2,200 as wasilat for the period during which they kept him out of possession. The decree was obtained in the Court of the Munsif of Pingua on the 19th June 1891, and it is said to have been executed by delivery of possession on the 15th February 1892, corresponding to the 4th Phalgun 1298. The alleged dispossession was in Sraban and Kartik 1297.2. Defendants 3, 4 and 9, who alone contested this suit, put in a joint written statement denying the dispossession of the plaintiff from any portion of the land. The third defendant asserted a title to plots 15 to 19, and said that ho was in possession of them during the period for which wasilat is claimed. No title was set up by any of the defendants to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal799
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. The plaintiffs and the defendants are co-sharers in a joint estate. The defendants took possession of, and exclusively cultivated, 4,128 bighas of the joint lands. Thereupon the plaintiff's brought a suit for the recovery of joint possession with mesne profits and for an injunction.2. After trial in the Courts in India, the case went up to the Privy Council, and the Judicial Committee (see I.L.R. 18 Cal. 10) held that the plaintiff's were not entitled to either of the two remedies claimed by them, but that they were entitled to recover from the defendants compensation by reason of the exclusive use of the lands by the defendants, and the benefit derived by them; and they accordingly awarded to the plaintiffs compensation at the rate of two-thirds of 7 annas per bigha a year, that being commensurate with their share of the ijmali lands.3. We might here mention that the mesne profits that were claimed in that case were in respect of the years 1291 to 1293 Pous Aml...
Tag this Judgment!