Kolkata Court December 1899 Judgments
Bibi Azimunnissa Vs. Fakera Pasban
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal540
Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Bhagulpore, dated the 4th July 1898, in which he affirms the decision of the Munsif of Madhepura giving the plaintiff a decree for possession of certain lands. The plaintiff sues as occupancy ryot to recover possession of the land, of which she says she has been dispossessed by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who are her landlords. The suit was brought as against these landlords within a period of two years, but a 4th defendant, namely, Fakera Pasban, was added as a party-defendant in the suit by the Court of its own motion, and this party was not added until the 8th of September 1897, when more than two years had expired from the date of the alleged dispossession.2. The Courts below have held that the suit is not barred by limitation as against this defendant Fakera Pasban, who was added as a party, as he was alleged to be a tenant of the land. The Lower Appellate Court, however, has found that he was n...
Tag this Judgment!Preonath Chattopadhya Vs. Ashutosh Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal358
Banerjee and Stevens, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant to enforce specific performance of a contract for sale of certain immoveable property against the defendant No. 2, the vendor, and the defendant No. 1, who is a purchaser from the defendant No. 2 of the property in dispute, on the allegation that the predecessor in interest of the defendant No. 2 had entered into an ekrarnamah or agreement with the plaintiff and another person to sell the property to them if it was sold at all; that subsequently there was a verbal contract between the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff for the sale of the same to the latter for Rs. 100; and that the defendant No. 1, who had notice of the ekrarnamah and of the verbal contract, had, in spite of such notice, purchased the property from defendant No. 2.2. The defence of defendant No. 1 was a denial of the alleged verbal contract, a denial of notice of the verbal contract or of the ekrarnamah, and a denial of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Charan Sarkar Vs. Jotindra Mohan Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal493
Banerjee and Stevens, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for establishment of his right to and confirmation of his possession of certain immoveable property, and for a declaration that it was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of certain decrees held by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 against defendants Nos. 5 to 7. Subsequently, upon the property in suit being sold in execution of the decree held by defendant No 1 and purchased at auction by two persons Radha Rani Chowdhurani and Jagut Gowri Chowdhurani, they were added as defendants Nos. 8 and 9. The defence, so far as it is necessary to be considered for the purposes of the present appeal, was that the suit; could not proceed in the absence of certain persons, who, like the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, had obtained decrees against defendants Nos. 5 to 7, and had attached the property in dispute, and on attachment at whose instance claims had been preferred by the plaintiff and had been rejected u...
Tag this Judgment!Jogemaya Dasi and ors. Vs. William Sheriff
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal535
Banerjee and Stevens, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents, who are putnidars of a certain share in a zemindari to recover arrears of rent due from the defendants in respect of durputni held by them under the plaintiffs.2. The defence, so far as it is necessary to be considered for the purposes of the present appeal, was to the effect that, as neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor, their mother, Nistarini Dasi, had complied with the requirements of Section 15 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, they were debarred by Section 16 of that Act from maintaining this suit.3. The first Court gave effect to the defendant's objection and dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs the Lower Appellate Court has given them a decree in respect of a part of their claim, namely, that portion of it which i relates to the rent that fell due during the lifetime of the plaintiffs mother, except the rent for 1299, which was held to be barred by limitation. Against ...
Tag this Judgment!Shama Charn Kundu Vs. Khettromoni Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal521
Richard Couch, J.1. The principal question in this appeal is, whether probate of the will of Modhu Sudan Kundu, who died on the 9th October 1892, ought to be granted. The appellant was the applicant for the probate, and in his petition for it, presented to the District Judge on the 20th January 1893, he stated that he was the adopted son of Modhu Sudan and one of the executors, mentioned in the will. He also stated that another will had been executed by Modhu Sudan on the 4th October 1892, which was revoked by the later will and was filed in Court. The application was opposed by Nistarini Dasi, the widow of Modhu Sudan, in a petition put in on the 31st January 1893, in, which she denied the genuineness of the second will, refused to admit the first will, and also asserted that Shama Charan the appellant, was not the adopted son of the deceased. On the 23rd February, Nistarini presented a petition withdrawing her objections. Thereupon, on the 27th February 1893, the respondent, who is o...
Tag this Judgment!Phul Chand Ram Vs. Nursingh Pershad Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1899
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal73
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Bhagalpore,. dated the 7th March 1899.2. The facts of the case are that a certain property, belonging to a minor, was, sold on the 20th of June last in execution of a decree, and that on the 25th or 26th of July (probably the latter date is the more correct 'one) the judgment-debtor made an application under Section 310-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to be allowed to pay in the decretal amount and to have the sale of the property set aside. The Munsif disallowed the 'application. The District Judge, although he held that the decree in execution of which the sale took place was a mortgage-decree, and that, according to the case of Kedar Nath Raut v. Kali Chun Ram (1898) I.L.R. 25 Cal. 703 Section 310-A does not apply to sales held in execution of mortgage-decrees, nevertheless reversed the Munsif's order, allowed the application and set aside the sale.3. The decree-holder, who was the purchaser of the property at the sale...
Tag this Judgment!Robert Watson and Co. Ltd. Vs. Ambica Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal529
Ramnipi and Wilkins, JJ.This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 18th of April 1898, refusing to re-admit an appeal under the provisions of Section 558 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the case are these: This case, after several postponements, was called on for hearing before the District Judge on the 25th of March 1898, and on that date the pleader.for the appellant said that he had received no instructions. He then proceeded to ask for two hours' time, as the case was a complicated one and involved considerations of interest to various classes of tenants. The application was refused, and the District Judge accordingly dismissed the appeal. The appellant then' applied, under Section 558, for the re-admission of the appeal which, as has been said before, was rejected. The learned pleader for the appellant urges that the District Judge was wrong in refusing to give the pleader, who appeared before him, two hours postponement as asked for....
Tag this Judgment!RajnaraIn Mitter Vs. Ekadasi Bag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal479
Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.1. These are two analogous rent suits.2. In one the plaintiff is Mr. Mitter, Receiver, appointed by this Court to the Paikpara estate. Ekadasi Bag is the principal defendant, and Sarat Chundra Singh is proformed defendant. In the other, Sarat Chandra Singh is the plaintiff, Ekadasi Bag, the principal, and Mr. Mitter, the proformed defendant.3. The facts are that the defendant Ekadasi is a tenant of the Paikpara estate, Mr. Mitter is the Receiver and Kumar Sarat Chandra Singh, a transferee of a share in the estate. Formerly, it is said, Ekadasi held two jamas, one of 5 bighas odd, and the rent of which was Rs. 16 odd, and the other of 39 bighas odd, the rent of which was Rs. 131 odd. The jamas were consolidated and the defendant paid an annual rent of Rs. 146 odd to the co-sharers jointly. Now, the estate has been partitioned by the High Court, and the jamas allotted to the different shares. The jama of Rs. 131 has fallen to the share of which Mr. Mitter is the R...
Tag this Judgment!Macnaghten Vs. Surja Prossad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1899
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.302
1. The respondent before us, Surja Prasad, obtained a decree for money against one Lalji Lal. The latter had obtained a decree upon a mortgage against one Sadik Ali on the 12th February 1886. Surja Prasad, in execution of his decree, obtained, in the first instance, an attachment of Lalji Lal's decree against Sadik Ali, and subsequently applied to the Court that he might be substituted in place of Lalji Lal as judgment-creditor, and allowed to execute that decree. This application was opposed by one Mr. Macnaghten, who, it would appear, has purchased a portion of the mortgaged premises in execution of some other decree of his against Sadik Ali, and his objection was upon the ground that the application of Surja Prasad, as made, was not authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The Court below, having regard to the provisions of Section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has negatived the objection of Mr. Macnaghten, and allowed Surja Prasad to execute the decree obtained by Lalji L...
Tag this Judgment!Raj NaraIn Mitter Receiver to the Paikpara Estate Vs. Ekadasi Bag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal793
Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapur, dated the 10th March 1898.2. The suit is one relating to an obstruction on a public road. It is said that the defendant has erected a portion of a wall and a portion of a hut on a public thoroughfare; and the plaintiff sues for their removal.3. The Lower Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff has not proved any special damage or inconvenience; and, therefore, the road being a public road, he has his remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure and is not entitled to sue in a Civil Court.4. We think there is no ground for interfering with the decision of the Court below.5. The learned pleader for the appellant has argued at very great length that his client, being a zemindar, has a right of ownership in the land; and he has relied upon certain cases decided by the Allahabad High Court and upon certain English authorities. We are of opinion, however, that these decisions of the Alla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »