Kolkata Court March 1897 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.
Huri Mohan Shaha Vs. Baburali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal715
Maclean, C.J.1. I think the Subordinate Judge in this ease is in error. He decided the case upon the authority of the case of Krishna Lall Dutt v. Radha Krishna Surkhel I.L.R. 10 Cal. 402 but that case has been reversed by the decision in the case of Joggobundhu Mitter v. Purnanund Gossami I.L.R. 16 Cal. 530 and the latter case is certainly consistent with the principle of the cases of Joggobundhu Mukerjee v. Ram Chunder Bysack I.L.R. 5 Cal. 584 Lokessur Koer v. Purgun Roy I.L.R. 7 Cal. 418 Seen v. Muttusami I.L.R. 10 Mad. 53 and Shama Charan Chatterji v. Madhab Chandra Mookerji I.L.R. 11 Cal. 93.2. It is urged by the respondent's Vakil that this ease is distinguishable from those to which I have referred by reason of the fact that in some of those cases the tenants were in possession, in which case Section 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure was the proper one under which to take or to give symbolical possession. He says that those cases are distinguishable from the present by reason o...
Fassib-ad-dIn and anr. Vs. Abbas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal413
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. The plaintiffs, having obtained in another suit a decree for possess of property from which they had been ousted, have brought this suit mesne profits.2. This suit was originally brought only against Imambandi Begui (sic) no was the principal defendant in the other suit, but in consequence of her alleging in her written statement that she had been dispossessed by other persons of a portion of the land in respect of which mesne profits were sought, those other persons, viz., Dulhin Golab Kunwar and Awadh Behari Narain Singh, who had also been parties to the suit for possession, were, at the instance of the plaintiffs, added as defendants in this suit.Imambandi Begum died pending this suit. Period of Time from which period Description of suit. limitation. Begins to run.For the profits of immoveable Three years ... When the profits are received, orproperty belonging to the plaintiff where the plaintiff has beendlapossessedwhich have been wrongfully received b...
Ramani Kanta Roy and ors. Vs. Hemadri Nath Khan, by His Mother and Gua ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal575
Banerjee, J.1. The facts of this case, as set (sic) Government. In 1854 his father gave a putni (sic) share of the estate to the defendants' preder(sic) alleges that the land being held ijmali, although separately from the tenants their respective shares of the rent, difficulty and inconvenience has arisen in the management of the property, and he brings this suit to have his 10 annas share of the land divided by metes and bounds from the 6 annas of the putnidars, the land of the entire estate remaining liable as before for the entire amount of the Government revenue Payable in respect of it.2. The Court below having made a decree for partition, one of the defendants has appealed against it on the ground that there can be no decree for partition in a suit by a zemindar against his putnidars, and the question we are asked to determine is 'whether on the facts stated there can be a decree for partition.'3. I am of opinion that the question ought to be answered in the affirmative. As a ge...
Ramohari Singh and anr. Vs. Moti Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal699
Maclean, C.J.1. The answer to the question submitted by this reference appears to me to depend upon the question how the interest arises. If it arise and be held to be payable by virtue of Act XXXII of 1839, it appears to me that Article 116 of schedule II to the Limitaton Act (XV of 1877) applies. In that respect I agree with the decision in the case of Gudri Koer v. Bhubaneswari Coomar Singh I.L.R. 19 Cal. 19 which, upon this point, is consistent with the recent decision in the Privy Council of Mathura Das v. Narindar Bahadur Pal I.L.R. 19 All. 39: L. R. 23 I. A. 138. In view of the latter case, however, the former is erroneous in holding that no interest was recoverable. It is clear, having regard to the Privy Council case, that six years' interest is recoverable. This was not contested in the present case, nor could it have been, in the face of the latter decision. Under Section 88 of the Transfer of Proporty Act, the mortgagor cannot redeem unless and until this interest, if and w...
Kailash Chandra Lahiry and ors. Vs. Jogodishury Debea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal725
Maclean, C.J.1. The question for our decision is: 'Whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 265 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Civil Court can make a partition of land of a revenue-paying estate when no separate allotment of the Government revenue is asked for.'2. A preliminary objection has been raised that no appeal lies in this case. It becomes necessary, therefore, to ascertain what the proceedings in the suit have been. The appealing defendant raised the objection in his written statement that the suit ought to have been brought in the Collectorate and not in the Civil Court. This point was decided against him both by the Subordinate Judge and by the District Judge. On the 8th December 1888 the Subordinate Judge made an interlocutory decree for partition, which was affirmed by the District Judge on the 6th June 1889. This decree, in my opinion, was a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and was appealable.3. This decree apparently did...
Ramanath Ghose Vs. Brojodurlabh Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal908
Maclean, C.J.1. The question for our decision is, 'whether, when the parties to a suit, have by an agreement adjusted the subject (sic) of the suit the Court can or cannot, by an order made in the suit, (sic) order such agreement to be recorded and make a decree in accordance with it, if one of the parties to such agreement object.' Although the question does not specifically refer to Section 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear from the terms of the reference, and it was admitted, that the question really submitted is whether the Court can make the order under that particular section.2. It appears that there has been much litigation between the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit, both in the Criminal and Civil Courts, and ultimately they entered into the agreement, dated the 19th May 1894. By this agreement the defendant agreed (amongst other matters) 'to consent to a decree for an account in the suit now pending in the High Court, Original Side (being suit No. 397 of ...
Srihari Banerjee and anr. Vs. Khitish Chandra Rai Bahadoor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal569
Francis William Maclean, C.J. and Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, appellants, for a declaration of their right by purchase to a 1 anna 15 gandas 2 karas 2 krantis share in certain land, for a further declaration that the right of the defendant No. 1 by purchase extends only to a 6 annas odd gandas share of the said land, and that the defendant No. 1 is therefore entitled to recover from the plaintiffs as rent for the said land only Rs. 5 odd annas annually, and for refund of a certain sum of money which the defendant No. 1 is said to have unjustly recovered by suit from the plaintiffs. The allegations upon which the plaintiffs base their right to the reliefs claimed are shortly these: That the husband of plaintiff No. 1, while living jointly with plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, obtained mourasi mokurari pattas, or permanent leases at fixed rent, of the land in dispute, which is revenue-free land, from the former proprietors thereof, namely, defendant...
Bhattu Mahton and ors. Vs. Pareman Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal672
Treyelyan, and Beverley, JJ.1. This suit was brought by all the members of a Mitakshara family (sic)e one, namely, Mangru Mahton, who was the fifth defendant, for the (sic)pn of obtaining possession of property which had been sold in execution decree obtained against Mangru Mahton and also against Sobha Mahto brother, the fifth of the plaintiff's. The family consisted of three brother their wives and sons. The suit in which the decree was obtained while to the sale was brought for the purpose of recovering damages for dhan had been stolen by the defendants in that suit. The defendants in the included Mangru Mahton and Sobha Mahton. We may mention in pa that the decree in that suit describes the claim as being for the recove Rs. 561-14-6 as damages on account of the price of the grains appropriat the defendants. That statement is important, having regard to the question which has been argued in this appeal.2. No evidence has been given in this case as to any of the proceeding execution,...
Amrito Lall Dutt Vs. Surnomoye Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal589
Jenkins, J.1. As this action was originally framed, it was alleged that various breaches of trust had been committed and consequent relief was claimed. When, however, the matter first came before me as a result of discussion that then took place, the charges of misconduct were withdrawn, and the claim resolved itself into one for construction of the will and administration.2. The testator, whose will gives rise to these proceedings, is one Hari Das Dutt, a wealthy Hindu, of the Sudra caste, and a resident of Calcutta, who died in October 1875, leaving a sole widow, the defendant, Sreemutty Surnomoyo Dassee, and two married daughters, the defendants, Sreemutty Premmoye Dassee and Sreemutty Banee Money Dassee. The first named of these daughters at the time of her father's death had three sons, the defendants. Radha Prosad Mullick and Kasi Prosad Mullick, and one since deceased; s(sic) also has had two sons born after her father's death, the defendants, Pea(sic) Lal Mullick and Behari Lal...
Narayani Dassi and ors. Vs. Pasupati Mohapatra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal537
Hill and Rampini, JJ.1. The question raised by this appeal is whether a mortgage created by the operation of Section 171 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is an incumbrance within the meaning of chapter XIV of that Act, and as such liable to be avoided by the purchaser of a holding at a sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent.2. The facts found by the Lower Appellate Court are as follows: Subordinate to a certain putni tenure there were two holdings, one of which was in the occupation of a person named Sumitra, and the other in that of Sundari and Nityamoyi.3. On the 14th Pous 1296 the husband of Matungini, the second defendant in the present suit, purchased both these holdings from the tenants.4. Afterwads in the year 1891 the putnidars instituted two suits for arrears of rent for the years 1295 to 1298, one against Sumitra and the other against Sundari and Nityamoyi. Matungini intervened in both suits as purchaser, and ultimately a compromise was arrived at between her, the putnida...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »