Kolkata Court April 1899 Judgments
Napal Chandra Sadookhan Vs. Amrita Lall Sadookhan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal889
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The first objection taken by the appellant is that the present application for execution of the decree is out of time. I do not think it is. The decree was for costs and for delivery of possession of certain immoveable property. The decree was made on the 15th March 1891, and an application for execution of the decree in respect of the costs was made on the 10th December 1894. The application for execution, on the face of it, distinctly stated that the decree-holders would afterwards apply for delivery of possession of the land. No objection was taken by the judgment-debtor at the time to this method of procedure on the part of the decree-holder, or that he ought not to be allowed, for execution purposes, to split up his decree, or rather execute it piecemeal. Execution for costs was proceeded with, and the amount realised. The present application for execution of the decree for possession of the immoveable property was made on the 21st April 1897, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dookhiram Naskar Vs. Durga Charan Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal925
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs, dated the 28th July 1898, and the only point discussed before us is that of limitation, in other words, was the appeal out of time?2. The following are the admitted facts. The decree in the suit, in which the present appellant, a minor, suing by a next friend and in forma pauperis, was plaintiff, was passed on the 13th September 1897, and the suit under some alleged compromise, was dismissed. The memorandum of appeal was filed on the 25th September 1897, and the memorandum was stamped, but not sufficiently stamped. With this memorandum was filed an application on behalf of the appellant for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. There appears to have been some delay, or perhaps negligence, on the part of those acting for the minor in bringing on this application, and it was not heard until the 23rd December 1897, when notice was ordered to be served upon the defendants, inc...
Tag this Judgment!Assanullah Bahadur Vs. Mohini Mohan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal739
Ghose and Banerjee, JJ.1. The plaintiff is the talukdar of mouzah chur Rampore, the defendant is the dur-talukdar of that property. Certain lands accreted to chur Rampore, and the Government, having taken proceedings, as we understand it, under Act XXXI of 1858 and Act IX of 1847, settled the accretion, treating it as a separate estate, with the talukdar, the plaintiff in the present case. Subsequently, this suit was brought claiming certain reliefs as against the defendant, the dur-talukdar, in respect of the said increment.2. There are two or three contradictory statements in the plaint as to the position of the defendant, but ultimately it treats him as one entitled to hold the increment as tenant, and asks that it be declared that the plaintiff is entitled to obtain annually Rs. 39-14-11 as rent from the defendant in respect of such lands, and that a decree for rent in respect of the years from 1299 to 1302 at the said rate be awarded. And as an alternative relief it asks for compe...
Tag this Judgment!Rango Roy Alias Rung Lal Roy Vs. Holloway and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal842
Hill and Rampini, JJ.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents to the hearing of this appeal. It is contended that the suit is a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and that by virtue of the provisions of Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure a second appeal is barred.2. In answer to this objection reliance is placed by the learned Vakil for the appellant on Section 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, where it is provided, 'The cause of action in all suits between landlord and tenant as such shall, for the purposes of the Code of Civil Procedure, be deemed to have arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the tenure or holding in connection with which the suit is brought.' And it is argued that the inference to be drawn from that section is that all suits between landlord and tenant as such are to be regarded as suits cogn...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Charan Mandal and anr. Vs. Kali Prasanna Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal727
Ghose and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal which arises out of two applications, one made by the judgment-creditors, who are also the auction-purchasers at a sale in execution of the decree under Section 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for an order for delivery of possession of the property purchased by them, and the other by the judgment-debtors under Section 244 of the Code, objecting to the propriety of the sale, and asking, in effect, that the sale be set aside.2. The decree in question was obtained on the 24th April 1894. It purports to be a decree for rent, and it was made in a suit instituted by certain fractional shareholders of a zemindari. Having obtained this decree in respect of their share of the rent they brought the property in the occupation of the defendants, the judgment-debtors, and in respect of which the rent was claimed, to sale on the 5th of June 1896, and purchased it themselves. The sale seems to have been confirmed on the 14th July 1896. They then applied...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu Bashini Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Janhavi Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal593
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. The Subordinate Judge has in this case affirmed the decision of the Munsif, and held that the plaintiffs have, under the provisions of the 26th section of the Limitation Act, acquired a right of way over the land of the defendant. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of a plot of land appertaining to an estate which belonged to their predecessors and the predecessors of the defendant; they said that this plot had been allotted to them when a partition of the estate was made many years ago; that it had since been in their possession, and that the approach to it was by the way in question, which they and their tenants had always used for that purpose. They claimed a right of way both by grant as an easement of necessity and as acquired under Section 26 of the Limitation Act. We are only concerned with the last mentioned claim, which is the one found to be established. The others have not been considered. No exception is now taken to the finding that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Sharoop Dass Mondal Vs. Joggessur Roy Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal564
Maclean, C.J.1. The question submitted for our consideration is whether Article 32 or Article 120 of the Second Schedule of the Limitation Act applies to the present case.2. To ascertain this, we must consider what was the nature of the suit and what was the relief sought. The primary relief sought was in effect a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to fill up the tank in question and to pay the plaintiff' compensation for his alleged wrongful act; the secondary relief was for ejectment. We say secondary, for the ejectment was not to follow, and could not follow, save upon failure of the defendant to fill up the tank and make the compensation; it was contingent on that failure. For the tort complained of, the plaintiff had three remedies, (1) damages, (2) a mandatory injunction, and (3) ejectment, contingent upon the tenant not complying with certain conditions. This being the nature of his suit, under which article of the Limitation Act does the case come? If under Article 32...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Chunder Mitter Vs. Jatadhari Sadukhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal653
Maclean, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit' brought by the plaintiff to recover damages from the defendant for insult, loss of reputation, and mental pain, caused by the defendant by the use of abusive language. The defendant denied using the alleged abusive language, and objected to the amount claimed as being excessive.2. The first Court decreed the suit in part; but on appeal by the defendant the Lower Appellate Court has reversed the decision of the first Court and dismissed the suit, on the ground that mere abusive and insulting language, which did not affect the plaintiff's reputation, was not actionable.3. Against that decision of the Lower Appellate Court this appeal has been preferred, and the learned Judges before whom the appeal came on for hearing, in view of the conflict, or apparent conflict, of decisions, have referred the matter to a Full Bench.4. The actual question referred is expressed in these terms:Whether abusive and insulting language, such as that used in ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameswar Malia Vs. F.W. Duke Chairman of the Howrah Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal811
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is a suit, in effect, to restrain the defendant, as Chairman of the Municipality at Howrah, from acting under the resolutions of the Board passed under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff is the owner of certain basti land within the jurisdiction of the Municipality, and the Municipality, in 1893, having ascertained that the sanitary condition of these bastis was very unsatisfactory, appointed the Officiating Sanitary Commissioner to make a report to them upon the matter, and it is clear from the 8th resolution passed at a meeting of the Commissioners held on Thursday, the 7th December 1893, that the Commissioners, in meeting assembled, were satisfied from the report of the Officiating Sanitary Commissioner, that the existing block of huts in the Bengal Babu basti, within the Howrah Municipality, was, by reason of the manner in which the huts were crowded together, attended with risk of disease to the inhabitants or to the neighbourhoo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Goods of Omda Bibee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal407
Sale, J.1. In the High Court the fee mentioned in Article 11 of the first Schedule to the Court Fees Act is, under Section 3 of the Act, payable to the Registrar. In case of difference as to the fee or the amount thereof payable, the question is by Section 5 of the Act referred to the Taxing Officer. These sections have not been repealed by the amending Act XI of 1899. By that Act the High Court, when an application is made to it for probate or letters of administration, is required to cause notice to be given to the chief controlling revenue authority, that is to the Board of Revenue. The object is not to delay the grant, which may be made as soon as the Court is satisfied that the ad valorem fee payable on the valuation of the assets furnished in the prescribed form has been paid. The fee is required to be prepaid to the satisfaction of the Court. Such payment should be made to the Registrar and certified by him to the Court. This certificate or a certificate from the Taxing Officer,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »