Kolkata Court July 1896 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.
Jahnabi Chowdhrani Vs. Bindu Basini Chowdhrani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal260
Macpherson and Hill, JJ.1. The plaintiff and the defendants are the owners of adjoining tenures. The plaint sets out that the defendants wantonly and with the intention of causing injury to the plaintiff dug a trench on the verge of the boundary of her tenure, 110 feet long and 8 or 9 feet deep, the depth being perpendicular downwards and sloping inwards towards the bottom in the direction of the plaintiff's land, and that this must necessarily result in the subsidence of the plaintiff's land. It is further alleged that the defendants were still going on with the work. The relief asked for is a perpetual injunction prohibiting them digging earth within a certain distance of the plaintiff's tenement; the filling up of the excavation, or in default a certain sum of money as the costs of filling it up. There was a further prayer for general relief.2. The defendants raised various objections to the plaintiff's suit. They asserted their right to dig as they pleased upon their own land, and ...
Dhunput Singh Vs. Mahomed Kazim IspahaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal296
Ghose and Hill, JJ.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for rent.2. The plaintiff in both these cases is the zemindar of Pergunnah Haveli, within which the properties (Lot Saefgunge and Lot Mirzapore) in respect of which rent is claimed are situate. Both these properties had been leased to certain individuals, described as the Iranees, in patni under two different leases.3. In execution of a decree upon a mortgage bond executed by the Iranees, the plaintiffs purchased the two patnis and some other properties on the 2nd February 1891 (the sale being confirmed on the 16th April 1891, 21st Magh 1298 mulki), and obtained symbolical possession in November 1891. The principal defendant in these two suits, Babu Chutterput Singh, had purchased the same properties in execution of another decree, upon an earlier mortgage against the Iranees on the 8th March 1890, and in dun course obtained possession through the Court.4. It appears that shortly after the plaintiff was put into formal poss...
Lall Behary Dutt Vs. Thacomoney Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal899
Sale, J.1. This is an application by the defendant for an order that, having regard to the law of damdupat, the plaintiff is not entitled to realize and receive more on account of principal and interest under the decree in this suit, dated the 23rd July 1883, than double the amount of the principal sum therein mentioned.2. It appears that, on the 30th May 1879, the- defendant's husband (since deceased) executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff to secure the principal sum of Rs. 12,000 and interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent, per annum, the security being the mortgagor's undivided one-tenth share in properties specifically mentioned in the mortgage which formed part of a joint family estate.3. A suit to partition the joint estate was instituted on the 18th of February 1880. In that suit a decree for partition was made on the 2nd of April 1881, and by an order, dated the 26th of May 1881, the Receiver of this Court was appointed Receiver of the whole joint estate. On the 16t...
Ram Lall and ors. Vs. Bhola Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal34
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. The facts which it is necessary to detail for the purposes of our judgment are as follows:2. On the 19th of July 1839 the first defendant executed a mortgage of certain property in favour of one Ram Lall, and in the mortgage bond promised to pay the amount secured thereby by the end of Sraban 1297 (July 1890). The consideration for the mortgage consisted of a decree which had been made in favour of one Dooli Chand, and two bonds which had been given to one Jaitroop. As a matter of fact the money covered by the decree belonged to Jaitroop, and in the matter of the mortgage, Ram Lall was the benamidar of Jaitroop.3. On the 6th of September 1891, Jaitroop made over this debt to the firm of Hardeo Dass, Janki Dass, the members of which firm are Behari Lal and Nait Ram. The assignment then made was not in writing, but a record of it was made in the books of the firm of Hardeo Dass, Janki Dass, and a release was given to Jaitroop for the debt which was owing by ...
Miajan Vs. Minnat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal521
Macpherson and Hill, JJ.1. The Lower Appellate Court is, in our opinion, wrong in the view which it has taken of the plaintiff's position. The facts are shortly these: There was a certain putni taluk subject to which there was a raiyati holding held by one Sameer. The talukdars obtained a decree against him for arrears of rent, brought the holding to sale, and purchased it themselves. After their purchase they sold it to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 230, the rent payable being the rent which had been paid by the previous holder.2. The defendants had, prior to the sale in execution of the rent decree, purchased a portion of the holding from the defaulting tenant, and they oppose the plaintiff in getting possession of the land.3. The plaintiff asks that possession may be given to him on the strength of his purchase of the raiyati holding.4. The Lower Appellate Court holds that what was sold at the execution sale was the occupancy right; that that right and the holding were extinguishe...
Rewat Mehton and ors. Vs. Dakeshur Pershad NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal25
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. It is difficult to conceive of a case where the formalities of the law have been more neglected than in the present instance.2. The suit was brought against a minor. No guardian ad litem was appointed of that minor, yet the case was allowed to proceed to decree. No attempt was made to serve the minor with a summons, but some attempt apparently was made to effect service of notice upon the lady who had been appointed guardian by the Court under Act VIII of 1890. Section 53 of that Act, amending the Civil Procedure Code, expressly requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem, whether or not a guardian is appointed under Act VIII of 1890, although that section gives precedence to the appointment of a guardian appointed under the- provisions of that Act.3. It is perfectly obvious that the decree appealed against is bad and must be set aside, and the case must go back to the lower Court in order that the minor may be represented in accordance with the law, a...
Jawadul Huq Vs. Ram Das Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal143
Macpherson, J.1. In my opinion the decision of Mr. Justice Beverley is right. There is no Jaw in this country which prevents one of several co-proprietors holding the status of a tenant under the other co-proprietors of land which appertains to the common estate. In the reported cases many instances will be found in which lands have been so held and in which the possession of the co-proprietor as a tenant has been recognised. Sub-section 2 of Section 22 of the present Tenancy Act does, however, provide that if an occupancy-right is transferred to a person jointly interested in the land as proprietor, the occupancy-right shall cease to exist. It is not said, and the Sub-section cannot be understood to mean, that the holding shall cease to exist, but that the occupancy right, which is an incident to the holding, will cease to exist; and there is nothing in the Sub-section inconsistent with the continuance of the holding divested of this right of occupancy which attached to it. The saving...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›