Kolkata Court July 1898 Judgments
Guru Dass Shut Vs. Nand Kishore Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal199
Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for arrears of rent for the years 1299-1302, and the facts upon which he bases his claim are shortly these: On the 20th Kartick 1291, the plaintiff acquired by purchase a raiyati holding bearing the annual rent of Rs. 14-1. On the same date, the plaintiff leased out the holding he had purchased to defendant No. 1 who executed in his favour a kabuliat which is on the record of this suit. Some four or five years after the execution of the kabuliat, the defendant No. 1 sold his under-raiyati holding to defendant No. 2, and the plaintiff states that he has accepted the defendant No. 2 as his tenant, but he sues both the defendants for the rent of the years 1299-1302.2. The defendants took several objections to the plaintiff's suit and the Munsif framed issues covering those objections. The third issue practically involves the question which has been argued in this appeal, namely, whether the rent payable t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahar Ali Shaha Vs. Tofaluddi Peada and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal78
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. Upon the question whether this is or is not a valid mortgage, having regard to the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, I think it is not. That section says that a mortgage can only be effected by a registered instrument, signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses. The question of attestation is a question of fact, and this mortgage was not attested by two witnesses; for I am unable to accept the argument for the plaintiff that the acknowledgment by the Sub-Registrar is equivalent to the attestation of an attesting witness. But although as a mortgage the deed may not stand, I think the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the covenants in the bond, the principal money which the defendants covenanted to pay. There is no question of this money demand being barred by limitation, and he is entitled to a money decree on that covenant.2. Then, as regards the interest, which is at a high rate, the question of liabi...
Tag this Judgment!Bishun Churn Roy Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Jogendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal114
Banerjee and Stevens, JJ.1. The points urged in the appeal of the defendants are--first, that the Courts below is wrong in holding that only a portion of the claim was barred by Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas it ought to have held that the whole of the claim was barred, partly under Section 13 and partly under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure; second, that the Court below is Wrong in holding that the plaintiffs' claim was not barred by limitation, whereas upon the evidence it was clearly so barred; and, third that upon the question of title the Court below ought to have held that the plaintiffs have failed to make out their right to the lands in dispute.2. For the plaintiffs, respondents, it is urged, by way of cross-objection, under Section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure, first, that the Court below is wrong in holding that any part of the claim was barred under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure; second, that the Court below is wrong in holding...
Tag this Judgment!Shyama Charan Mandal Vs. Heras Mollah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal160
Banerjee, J.1. In this appeal, which arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, the question for consideration is, whether the court of appeal below is right in disallowing the claim for interest at the rate mentioned in the kabuliat, dated the 21st Bysack 1280. The learned Vakil for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the Lower Appellate Court is wrong in not allowing interest at the rate mentioned in the kabuliat, as the grounds upon which it has based its decision are wrong in law.2. Now the grounds upon which the Lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest at the rate mentioned in the kabuliat are given in the following passage of the judgment: 'The contention on the part of defendant-appellant is that this kabuliat became inoperative on its having been returned to the executant immediately after registration at his request by the zemindar's naib on the complaint of the executant; that the stipulation of interest' was rather hard; that this stipul...
Tag this Judgment!Srikant Mondul and Others Minors by their Mother and Guardian Satyamon ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal46
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, appellants, for declaration of their jamai right to certain lands and their purchased right to a hut standing on the land, and for possession of the same, on the allegation that the plaintiffs have obtained a permanent lease of the land from the defendant No. 7, who is a gantidar, and that the remaining;' defendants, who are the superior landlords, and persons claiming under them, have resisted the plaintiffs in obtaining possession of the same.2. The defence of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the superior landlords, was to the effect that the defendant No. 7, under whom the plaintiffs claim to hold as sub-lessees, never had any permanent right in the land, that he was only a raiyat in respect of the same, and that the plaintiffs therefore have acquired no right to the property in dispute.3. The first Court found for the plaintiffs and gave them a decree. On, appeal by the defendants, Nos. 1 and 2 the Lower...
Tag this Judgment!Motichand and anr. Vs. Fulchand and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal142
P. O'Kinealy, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sue to recover the sum of Rs. 852-8-0 as damages for the neglect and refusal of the defendants to take delivery of 50 tons of linseed which they had contracted to purchase on the 29th of September 1896; and to recover the sum of Rs. 213-4-6 as damages for the neglect and refusal of the defendants to take delivery of 100 tons of wheat which they had contracted to purchase on the 23rd of October 1896. The contracts were made, the plaintiff's alleged, by the defendants with one Pursottom Lall, who was the seller of the goods, and after the date of the neglect and refusal relied on by the plaintiffs, Pursottom Lall, on the 13th of November 1897, assigned his causes of action in respect of both contracts to the plaintiffs for valuable consideration. The defendants are sued as partners in the firm of Hurnand Roy Fulchand, and the only ground upon which it is sought to make Sewmukh Roy liable is as a partner in that firm. I may say at once that t...
Tag this Judgment!Rungo Lall Lohea and ors. Vs. Wilson and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal204
O'Kinealy, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs claim to have been the owners of the premises No. 7, Haripore Lane, in Sulkea, in the suburbs of Howrah. They alleged that the defendants Messrs. Anderson, Wright & Co. had been tenants under them in occupation of those premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 60-10-9 down to the end of the month of December 1889; that the plaintiff's by a notice to quit, dated the 4th of December 1889, determined the tenancy then existing between them and the defendants at the end of that month; but that the defendants nevertheless continued in the occupation of the premises down to the time of the institution of this suit, that is to say, the 31st of July 1894. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 150 per month for use and occupation of the premises from the end of December 1889 to the filing of the plaint.2. The plaintiff Rungo Lall Lohea is one of four brothers, the others being Nahrmull, Sew Bux and Bhaniram, who constituted a joint Hindu family, and it appears that they...
Tag this Judgment!Baroda Sundari Ghose Vs. Dino Bandhu Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal874
Prinsep and Stevens, JJ.1. Chunder Nath Dey Sarkar, defendant No. 1, and Puddo Lochan Dey Sarkar, the deceased husband of defendant No. 2, mortgaged certain properties to Harish Chunder Shaha, who obtained an ex parte decree against them. In execution of that decree Sorosoti Dasi and Rutton Moni Dasi successfully objected to the sale of their shares in these properties, and accordingly their shares were exempted from sale, the sale being held of only the remaining shares. These ladies having died, their shares passed to the mortgagors as reversionary heirs, and on application made by the decree-holder these shares were sold in satisfaction of the balance of the mortgage debt. An attempt to obtain possession through the Court failed, and proceedings under Section 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure were instituted, but were afterwards withdrawn by the decree-holder purchaser, who subsequently sold to the plaintiff. The present suit has been brought by this purchaser to obtain possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohunt Jib Lal Gir Vs. Mohunt Jaga Mohan Gir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1898
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.453
1. The parties in this cas9 are rival claimants to the succession to the mohuntship of a math. The petitioner, now respondent, sought to have his claim determined by applying in the Court of the District Judge under Act V of 1881 for Letters of Administration to enable him to administer the estate of the math in succession to the deceased mohunt, in whose place he alleged himself to have been elected after the mohunt's death.2. A preliminary objection was taken in the Court of the District Judge that such an application did not lie under Act V of 1881; but the objection was disallowed and in the end Letters of Administration were granted to the petitioner, the present respondent.3. The objector has preferred the present appeal against the order of the District Judge upon the whole case; but we have in the first instance heard arguments only upon the question of law raised in the preliminary objection disallowed by the Court below, which is embodied in the first paragraph of the grounds...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Mehdi HosseIn Khan and ors. Vs. Rameswar Koer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal39
Hobhouse, J.1. The suit in which this appeal is presented is one for the enforcement of a simple mortgage. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for the sum of Rs. 1,24,239-8 and interest at 4 per cent, per annum from the date of the suit to date of realization; with direction for sale in case of non-payment in six months. Both parties appealed to the High Court on several grounds; when the High Court varied the decree by ordering 12 per cent, interest instead of 4, and with that exception affirmed it. The defendant appeals from the High Court decree on grounds of which only two need be considered.2. The mortgage bond in question is dated the 9th August 1880. The principal money, secured is a lakh of rupees to be paid in five years. Interest is to be paid at the rate of rupee 1 per cent, per mensem, by three equal instalments in the year, each for four months' interest. In default of those payments of interest, the bond provides that the unpaid interest shal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »