Kolkata Court August 1898 Judgments
Pran Nath Nandi and ors. Vs. Sariatullah Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal184
Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs own a twelve-anna share of Mouzah Mobouli by virtue of putni settlements, some acquired in 1297 (1890) and some in the year 1300 (1893), and they seek in this action to obtain khas possession of certain jote lands, on the ground that the defendants Nos. 8 and 9, who were the holders of the jotes in question had conveyed, or rather purported to convey the same to the defendants 1 to 7, although there was no custom or usage in the village recognising the transferability of occupancy rights, and that consequently the plaintiffs were entitled to obtain khas possession of the said lands.2. The principal defendants, who had obtained the transfer of the jotes, averred in their written statements the existence of a custom of transferability in that village and other villages in its vicinity, and contended that the plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed. It is un...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Nath Ghose and anr. Vs. Mahomed Nasim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal194
Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Sylhet, affirming the judgment of the Munsif of Moulavi Bazar, by which the plaintiffs' suit has been in part dismissed and in part decreed. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs upon the allegation that they had purchased a taluk called Rai Gour Hari Singh at a revenue sale, and that they were consequently entitled to set aside the shikmi haziran taluk alleged by the defendants to be held by them under the said taluk Gour Hari Singh.2. The defendants contended that their shikmi haziran taluk had been in existence from the time of the Permanent Settlement.3. The area held by the defendants amounted to 2 hudas, 6 khadas odd. Without entering into a detailed statement of all the facts of the case, we may mention that the Munsif found that the defendants had succeeded in establishing that they held a shikmi haziran taluk within taluk Gour Hari Singh from the time of the Permanent Settlem...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Behary Singh and anr. Vs. Habibur Rahman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal166
Ghose, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is what may be the true effect, of a decree passed between the parties on the 24th June 1896. The suit, in which this decree was passed, was a suit for a certain amount of money, as rent based upon a mortgage bond. In execution of the decree, the decree-holder asked that certain properties, other than those mentioned in the mortgage should be sold in satisfaction of his claim. The judgment-debtors opposed the application upon the ground that, as this was a mortgage-decree, it was not open to the decree-holder to sell these properties without exhausting the mortgaged properties.2. The Court below has acceded to the prayer of the decree-holder, and the Judgement debtor has preferred this appeal impugning the correctness of that order.3. It has been argued before us by the learned Vakil for the decree-holder that the decree should be construed to be a simple money-decree, a lien being declared on the properties mortgaged. The contention on th...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Bhupati Roy Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal74
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The facts necessary to be stated for the decision of this rule are shortly as follows: In a valuation made by the Corporation of Calcutta to take effect from the 1st April 1891, the annual value of certain premises belonging to the opposite party was fixed by the Commissioners at 651 rupees. On the 2nd April 1891, the opposite party objected to that valuation, but, owing, as it is said, to the great number of objections taken by other rate-payers, the objection was not determined until the 28th January 1895, when the Vice-Chairman reduced the annual value to 487 rupees. Under the 'Calcutta Municipal Consolidation Act, 1888' (Bengal Act II of 1888) fresh valuations are to be made every six years, and, in 1897, the Commissioners made a fresh valuation to take effect from the 1st April 1897and the annual value of the above property was fixed at 566 rupees. On the 10th July 1897 the opposite party, under Section 135 of the Act, gave (notice of his objec...
Tag this Judgment!Sonatun Shaha and ors. Vs. Dino Nath Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal222
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte decree against the defendant. The decree was set aside at the instance of the defendant, and it was set aside on terms, one of the terms being that the defendant should find a surety, who would be responsible for any amount that might be found due from the defendant by any decree to be subsequently made in the suit. The plaintiffs did not object, and the surety gave a bond to be so responsible.2. I think the Court had ample jurisdiction under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside an ex parte decree on those terms. A decree was subsequently made against the defendant at the hearing of the suit, and the decree-holders sued out execution both against the defendant and the surety, relying on Section 253 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The Court below has refused execution against the surety, hence the present appeal by the present decree-holders.4. Dr. Rash Behary Ghosh for the objecto...
Tag this Judgment!Karuna Moyi Banerjee Vs. Surendra Nath Mookerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal176
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. All we have to determine is whether the decree in this case is or is not a decree for arrears of rent or a mere money-decree, and, if the former, what is the effect of Sub-section (h) of Section 148 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In my opinion this is a decree for arrears of rent. Then what is the effect of the sub-section in question which says in effect, that any application to execute a decree for arrears of rent cannot be made by an assignee of the decree unless the landlord's interest in the land has become vested in him. The latter event has not happened, and the decree-holder is the assignee from the landlord of the arrears of rent. This being so, I think the judgment of the Court below is right, and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.Banerjee, J.2. I am of the same opinion. The only question raised in this appeal, which arises out of an application by the appellant, who is the assignee of a decree, to execute the same, is, whether the appli...
Tag this Judgment!H.W. Hudson Vs. Basdeo Bajpye
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal109
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of certain money upon a hundi bearing date the 11th September 1892, executed by the defendant No. 1 Charles Frederic Carleton in favour of the plaintiff. It appears that, at the time of the execution of the hundi, Carleton was the owner of the Byria factory, and that the plaintiff had purchased at an execution sale the holding of a certain raiyat, which Carleton was anxious to buy from him, the plaintiff. Carleton, However, was rather short of money then, and he borrowed the amount required for the purchase of the property by the execution of the hundi in question. No conveyance of the property, however, was executed by the plaintiff at that time, for reasons to which it is not necessary for us to refer. Subsequently, the Byria factory, with all the lands appertaining to it, was transferred by Carleton to the other defendant, Hudson; and the correspondence, to which our attention has been called by the learned Vakil...
Tag this Judgment!Kameshwar Pershad and anr. Vs. Amanutulla Alias Manick Babu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal53
Rampini, J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of an eight-annas share of mouzah Ledha, which the plaintiff purchased at a sale in execution of a decree obtained against the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 resists the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he is in possession of the property by virtue of a mokurari lease executed in his favour by the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff seeks to have this mokurari lease set aside on the ground that it is a fictitious and collusive lease, and that the defendant No. 1 is but a benamidar for defendant No. 2, who is still the owner, and who is really in possession of the mouzah. 2. The Munsif decreed the suit, but on appeal his decree was reversed by the District Judge, who, on the 30th July 1894, dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the mokurari lease was a fictitious transaction. A second appeal was then preferred to this Court, and on the 13th May 1896 the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court was set ...
Tag this Judgment!Sambbu Chandra Bepari Vs. Krishna Charan Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal179
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. In this case we are of opinion that the view taken by the Munsif is correct, namely, that the amount secured by the bond is Rs. 200, and that the bond must be stamped accordingly. In arriving at this conclusion we are not unmindful of the provisions of Section 23 of the Stamp Act, I of 1879. The case referred to in the reference decided by the High Court at Allahabad does not appear to us to have any bearing upon the matter....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›