Kolkata Court January 1899 Judgments
Dwarkanath Roy Vs. Ram Chand Aich and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal428
Maclean, C.J.1. The question submitted to us ought to be answered in the negative. The issue determined in the previous suit (a rent-suit) was, whether the relation of landlord and tenant existed at the time when that suit was instituted between the present plaintiff and the then defendant, and whether the then defendant was liable for the amount then claimed as rent for a certain period. That issue was decided against the present plaintiff, and as it is conceded that nothing has occurred in the interval to change the position of the parties, that question must be treated as res judicata as against the plaintiff, and in the defendants' favour. But the relief sought in the present suit is absolutely different from the relief sought in the previous suit. The present issue is, whether the land in dispute belongs to the plaintiff, and, if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the tenant defendant for the use of the land. That is put clearly in the reference, and I agre...
Tag this Judgment!Pyari Mohun Bose Vs. Kedarnath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal409
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The question raised on this reference is whether, where two parties contract with a third party, a suit by one of them, making the other a co-defendant, ought to be dismissed because the plaintiff has not proved that the co-defendant had refused to join as co-plaintiff. Upon this question, there is some diversity of opinion in the decisions of this Court. In the case of Tarini Kant Lahiri v. Nund Kishore Patronovis (1882) 12 C.L.R., 588, it was held that such non-joinder was not sufficient ground to justify the dismissal of the suit, and that view has been given effect to by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bissesswar Roy Chowdhry v. Brojo Kant Roy Chowdhry (1897) 1 C.W.N., 221. It has been considered that the opposite view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dwarka Nath Mitter v. Tara Prosunna Roy (1889) I.L.R., 17 Cal., 160, and in the case of Soshee Shekhareswar Roy v. Giris Chandra Lahiri (1897) 1....
Tag this Judgment!Bonomali Haldar and ors. Vs. Bishambhur Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal414
Maclean, C.J.,1. In this case I agree with the view expressed by the two referring Judges, which is in accord with that expressed in the two cases of Pulin Chandra Roy v. Akbar Hossein (1893) I.L.R., 21 Cal., 350, and Bhola Nath Maiti v. Mohinuddin Mahomed (1894) I.L.R., 21 Cal.,. 350, note. Agreeing as I do with the reasons upon which those decisions are based, no useful object will be attained by my merely repeating them. The question then must be answered in the negative, and the case must be remanded, as is suggested in the reference, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the case is brought within Section 18* of the Limitation Act, Act XV of 1877.2. The costs will abide the results of the re-trial.Prinsep, J.3. I am of the same opinion. The difficulty in this case has arisen from the attempt to consolidate, by reading as one Act, three different Acts of a different character, and passed after some interval of time, relating to the recovery of public demands. To provide against a...
Tag this Judgment!Ganu Singh Vs. Jangi Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal531
Ghose and Stevens, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, asked for a declaration of his title in respect to a 4 gundas odd share in a certain property as acquired by him under a bill of sale executed by the defendant, second party, Harihar Singh, on the 9th June 1894. The respondents before us, Babu Jangi Lal and others, who are the creditors of Harihar Singh, on the institution of a suit against that individual for recovery of a certain amount of money, obtained an attachment before judgment of the 4 gundas and odd share of the property.2. The Courts below have dismissed the suit upon the ground that the sale of the plaintiff on the 9th June 1894, while the attachment before judgment was subsisting, was bad in law, and that therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment.3. It has, however, been argued before us by the learned Vakil on behalf of the plaintiff that the Courts below, before giving effect to the attachment befo...
Tag this Judgment!Dilbar Sardar and anr. Vs. HoseIn Ali Bepari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal553
Hill and Rampini, JJ.1. The appellants in this Court are, it appears, co-proprietors with the plaintiff in a certain taluk, the former holding a two-anna and the latter a fourteen-anna share thereof.2. It also appears that the appellants obtained a money decree against one he tenants holding under the talukdars as a body, and in execution of that they brought the holding to sale, purchased it themselves, and obtained possession. The holding in question was an occupancy holding; an' it has been found, as a matter of fact, that in that particular locality occupancy holdings are not transferable without the consent of the landlord.3. The plaintiff brought the present suit for the purpose of regarding joint possession along with the appellants of the lands comprised in the holding in question.4. Both the Courts below have decreed in his favour, and have restored the plaintiff to joint possession of the land.5. In this Court it is contended that the form of the suit was misconceived, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Goor Bux Sahoo Vs. Birj Lal Benka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1899
Reported in: (1889)ILR26Cal275
Ghose and Stevens, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Patna under Section 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing that a plaint which had been filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of that District, be returned to the plaintiff for the purpose of being presented to the proper Court.2. The suit was one for the recovery of damages by reason of breach of a contract on the part of the defendant in the matter of the sale of certain goods which had been consigned by the plaintiff', and despatched by him from his place of business in the district of Patna to the defendant at. Calcutta. The plaint mentioned in the first place what the nature of the contract was, and that the defendant had committed a breach of such contract in connection with the sale of the goods that had been consigned to him; and it then stated that the cause of action had accrued at Sadikpore, Nawada, and Mokama, the places from which the goods were despatched to the defendant. The...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Sankari Gupta Vs. Bharat Chandra Bardhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal434
Maclean, C.J. and Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant to recover khas or direct possession of a 4 annas share in certain plots of land, after ejectment of the defendants 1 to 5 therefrom, on the allegation that the plaintiff has become entitled to the aforesaid share in the disputed lands free of all incumbrances by reason of the said lands having been allotted to her and to defendant No. 6 under a partition held by the Collector. The defence was a denial of the plaintiff's right to eject the defendants 1 to 5 and 8, who claimed to hold certain of the disputed plots of land as permanent tenure holders and the remaining plots in proprietary right.2. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree. On appeal by the defendants, that decree was set aside and the suit dismissed. Against the decree of the Appellate Court dismissing her suit, the plaintiff preferred a second appeal to this Court and her second appeal having been dismissed by Mr. Just...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chundra Giri Vs. KabiraddIn Mallick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal233
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent.2. The plaintiff's allegation was that the rent was payable at a certain amount. The defence was that the amount was less; and the plaintiff in support of hip allegation, that the rent was what was claimed, sought to show that the rent was increased in 1288, and once again in 1295.3. The first Court found for the defendants, and gave the plaintiff a decree at the admitted rate. Certain other objections were urged by the defendants, which it is not necessary to consider. On appeal by the plaintiff, the Lower Appellate Court has held that the alleged increase in the rent in 1288 was not proved, and that the increase in the rent said to have been effected in 1295 could not be given effect to, because it was net by a contract registered as required by Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.4. In second appeal it is contended that the Lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the increase in the rent that is said to h...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Nath Shaha Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Surja Kanta Lahiri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal460
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellants to recover possession of a certain land.2. The defence raised various points, of which it is necessary to notice only one, namely, limitation.3. The first Court dismissed the suit, and the decree of the first Court has been affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, which has based its judgment only upon the ground of limitation.4. In second appeal it is contended for the plaintiffs that the Lower Appellate Court is wrong in law in holding that the case is barred by limitation. The facts of the case as found by the Lower Appellate Court are shortly these: The land in dispute, along with other lands, had been let out in putni and darputni by the plaintiffs' predecessor in title, but whilst the putni and darputni were in existence, the defendant or their predecessors took possession of the land in dispute adversely to the putnidar and darputnidar, and they have continued in possession.5. Subseque...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Shaha Vs. Kamala Kanta Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal311
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the declaration of a right of way, and for the removal of certain obstructions alleged to have been made by the defendants.2. Three points have been raised by the learned Vakil for the plaintiff appellant. First, that upon the findings arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree quite irrespective of Section 26 of the Limitation Act, on the ground that the claim was one that the plaintiff was entitled to make under an implied grant presumable from what is known as: 'Disposition of the owner of two tenements;' secondly, that the Lower Appellate Court is in error in throwing upon the plaintiff the burden of proof upon the question whether the user was 'as of right;' and, thirdly, that upon the findings arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court, even if the plaintiff was not entitled to a right of way for marriage and funeral processions, he was at least entitled to an ordinary right of way....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›