Kolkata Court September 1898 Judgments
Girindra Nath Mukerjee Vs. Bejoy Gopal Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal246
Maclean, C.J. and Banerjee, J.1. The question raised in this appeal, which arises out of a proceeding in execution of a decree, is whether the order of Her Majesty in Council, which awards costs to the respondents, can be executed against the surety, the appellant before us, notwithstanding that the mortgage bond which creates the liability of the surety is not attested by witnesses as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court below, applying the principle laid down in Nitye Gopal Sircar v. Nagendra Nath Mitter (1885) I.L.R., 11 Cal., 429, has held that the requirement of the law as to the attestation of mortgages above a certain value is satisfied by the signatures of the Sub-Registrar and the identifiers of the executant below the registration endorsement recording the admission of execution, and it has accordingly allowed execution of the order for costs to proceed against the surety.2. Against this decision the surety has appealed; and it is contended on his...
Tag this Judgment!Braja Lal Sen Vs. Jiban Krishna Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal285
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J. and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for possession and mesne profits of certain immovable property known as chak Bele Durgahagun, on the allegation that the chak appertained to the estate of one Ramsagur Mitter; that on the death of Ramsagur Mitter in 1240, corresponding to 1833, his two daughters Anandmoyi and Ishaneswari, who were his heiresses, held and owned the said chak in equal shares; that on the death of Anandmoyi in 1241 (or 1834), her share passed by survivorship to her sister Ishaneswari, who, however, out of affection, gave Anandmoyi's son Uma Charan an eight anna share of the chak for his maintenance, and Uma Charan accordingly held possession of the same; that on the death of Tshaneswari in Falgoon 1300 (or March 1894), the plaintiff as Ramsagur Mitter's father's brother's daughter's son became entitled to the said chak by inheritance, and that he has been wrongfully kept out of posses...
Tag this Judgment!Kameshar Prosad and anr. Vs. Rajbuns Sahai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal172
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to set aside a certificate issued by the Collector under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act (Bengal Act VII of 1880), and the sale which took place in execution of that certificate. It appears that the certificate in question was issued on the 12th November 1894, and notice was served upon the plaintiff in terms of Section 10 of the Act on the 12th December 1894. Subsequently, on the 9th January 1895, the plaintiff applied to the Collector, apparently under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, to have the certificate cancelled upon the ground that no arrears were due from him. An order was recorded on this application on the 28th February 1895, which may be taken to imply that the Collector meant to hold that the plaintiff was liable to pay the arrears demanded. But, however that may be, the matter was again placed before the same authority on the 7th August 1895, when the order recorded was that, no evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Romesh Chandra Biswas and ors. Vs. Ghulam Nabi Fakir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1898
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.807
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, dated the 4th February 1897.2. The suit was for rent and was based on a kabuliat dated the 1st Baisak 1295. The parties have left the case in such a position that all we have to do is to construe that document. Nothing in regard to conduct amongst themselves has been left to us to determine. The document is in regard to a meadi sarasari jote, and was to have effect for three years. In the first column of the schedule of land and jama set out in that document is a description of the land, in the second column is the total area, in the third column the rate per bigha, in the fourth column is the rent in sicca rupees, in the fifth column is the batta on the Company's coin, in the sixth column is the total rent in the Company's coin, which is stated at Rs. 19-0-18 1/4 gandas, in the seventh column is the hajat allowed till the end of the term, which is stated at Rs. 10-8-4 1/2 gandas, and in the last column is the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenath Das Vs. Achutananda Mahanti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1898
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.262
Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), Section 232 - Decree, assignment of--Execution by assignee--Notice to transferor and to judgment-debtor.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree.2. It appears that the decree was obtained by a third party, and the applicant, alleging himself to be the assignee of the decree-bolder, presented an application for the purposes of executing it. Thereupon notices, as provided by Section 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were ordered to be issued upon the transferor decree-holder, and the judgment-debtors. After such notices were issued, it was found by the Court (and so it has also now been found) that service was effected upon the judgment-debtors; but no notice was served upon the transferor. Thereupon the Court ordered a fresh notice to be issued to him. But the applicant did not put in the necessary fees, and the result was that his application was dismissed on the 18th December 1895. Subsequently he presented other a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›