Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1902)ILR29Cal1
Maclean, C.J.1. The question submitted to us, which I arises upon the present rule is, `whether a mortgagee of a tenure or holding, sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent due in respect of it, is entitled to make an application under Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure, as 'being a person' whose immoveable property has been sold' within the meaning of that Section.' The reference has been made owing to a conflict between the cases of Hamidal Huq v. Matangini Dassi (1898) 2 C. W. N. ccl viii, and Nityananda Patra v. Hira Lal Karmakar (1900) 6 C. W. N. 63. It is clear that, in a sale under these circumstances, the mortgagee, unless he can come in under Section 310A, runs a very serious risk of losing the' benefit of his security, as the auction-purchaser is entitled to annul it. Here the mortgage was a simple mortgage, and, under Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 'a mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immoveable property for the purpose of sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1902)ILR29Cal54
Banerjee, J.1. In these appeals, which arise out of applications for execution of certain rent decrees for sums not exceeding Rs. 500, the main question for determination is whether an application for the execution of a decree obtained by two or more joint-landlords for their share of the rent is governed by the special rule of limitation laid down in Article 6 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, or by the general law of limitation, namely, Article 179 of the Second Schedule of Act XV of 1877.2. If the special law of limitation applies, the applications for execution are barred, unless they can be treated as being in continuation of certain previous applications made within three years from the date of the decrees. If the general law of limitation governs the cases, the applications are in time. The Courts below have held that the applications, which are admittedly made by a co-sharer landlord for the execution of decrees for his share of the rent, are not governed by Article 6 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1902)ILR29Cal208
Ghose and Taylor, JJ.1. It appears that there has been a decree between the parties, which was passed on the 28th April 1900, and although that decree has been appealed against to this Court, and that appeal is pending, yet we find that in execution thereof possession (though it may be called symbolical) was delivered to the petitioner on the 9th September 1900. The present proceeding was instituted on the 3rd December of the same year, and a fresh proceeding by reason of some defect in the earlier proceeding, was instituted on the 3rd January 1901.2. The Magistrate, no doubt, finds that on the date of the institution of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (he describes it as the date of the dispute), it is the second party that was in possession of the land involved in the proceedings, and he accordingly affirms the possession of that party, but in doing so he seems to have ignored the decree, to which we have made reference. That decree is binding betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1901)ILR28Cal637
1. The question at issue in this appeal is as to the liability of the appellants to pay road-cess. The appellants hold a mokurari jama under the plaintiff and the proforma defendant of Rs. 12-8, which they agreed to pay for the right to hold a mela on certain land, in the month of Falgoon every year, when there are no crops on the land. According to their pottah, dated the 12th Magh 1267, they are to pay this sum to their landlords from the profits of the mela. They were called on by the Collector to submit a valuation roll under the Cess Act with regard to the profits of this mela and submitted it. The Collector then fixed a certain amount of road-cess on the profits of the mela, which he has realized from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff now sues to recover this road-cess from the defendants, as well as the rent due under the lease.2. The First Court disallowed the plaintiff's claim for road-cess. The Subordinate Judge has allowed it, holding that the defendants are tenure-holders wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1902)ILR29Cal126
Rampini and Gupta, JJ.1. The only point in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is a minor suing through his guardian, is entitled to recover again from the defendant two sums of Rs. 125 and Rs. 99 which have been found by the Lower Appellate Court to have been paid by the defendant to the minor himself and for which the defendant produced genuine receipts.2. The District Judge has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover these sums again, and he has refused to give the plaintiff a decree for these amounts.3. We are of opinion that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is correct, and that this appeal must be dismissed. It appears that the guardian of the minor lived at Gya, whereas the minor was a resident of Shahabad. The latter went about collecting rents for himself, and in May 1896 he put in a petition to the Court alleging that he was over eighteen years of age, and asking to be allowed to manage his own affairs. We, think, therefore, that there is an estoppel ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1901)ILR28Cal794
1. The sole question in this appeal is whether the defendant who, in answer to a question put to him by a police officer conducting an investigation under the provisions of Act X of 1882, stated that the plaintiff was concerned in the commission of the crime then being investigated, can be made liable in an action for damages for words so spoken.2. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has held, on the authority of Queen-Empress v. Govinda Pillai (1892) I.L.R. 16 Mad. 235 that no action would, under such circumstances, lie, and, we think, that his decision is correct. A person, as was pointed out in that case, examined by a police officer conducting an investigation under Act X of 1882, was bound by Section. 161 of the Act to answer truly all questions put to him, and on that ground the learned Judges considered that he was entitled to the same protection as that extended to witnesses in a Court of Justice. This view derives support from the oases of Goffin v. Donnelly (1883) I.L.R....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1902)ILR29Cal100
Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration of their right to erect and maintain a bund at a place described in the schedule attached to the plaint as lea, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, other than the pro forma defendants, from removing it in future.2. The circumstances which gave rise to the suit are as follow:There appears to be a natural streamlet, which issuing from some villages called Fulnagar, Beldanga, &c.;, in the District of Burdwan, flows ill a southerly direction past the villages of Mitrapur and Bijoypur, where the plaintiffs have .their holdings and Arachia where the defendants reside and have their cultivation, and then takes an easterly course through the village named Palsana, where it joins the river Khari. The plaintiffs alleged that during the rainy season when the streamlet is filled with water the inhabitants of the riparian villages have, from time immemorial, had the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1901)ILR28Cal680
1. This is an appeal against certain proceedings of the District Judge of Gya, which have been characterized and very correctly characterized as being of a somewhat unusual nature.2. It appears that on the 6th of January, 1900, an application was made by certain ladies, who were members of a joint Hindoo family, for the appointment of a guardian of their minor children. The husbands of these ladies were living. There was no allegation of the children having separate property, and the District Judge, after considering the matter, recorded an order that he did not see how the Guardian and Wards Act could apply, and accordingly no order under the Guardian and Wards Act was made. Subsequently, on the 17th of the same month, the Judge recorded an order to the effect that the whole estate having come under the management of the Court, owing to joint petitions from the owners and the guardians of the minor sharers, the Nazir of the Court was authorized to raise any sum ' that might be require...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1901)ILR28Cal797
1. The appellants before us, who are twenty-three in number, have been convicted by the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpore under Section 436 coupled with Section 109, Section 307 coupled with Section 109, and Section 117 coupled with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced in respect of each of the charges under Sections 436 and 307 read with Section 109 to five years' rigorous imprisonment, the sentences running concurrently.2. The appellants are Mundas or Kohls in the District of Chota Nagpur, Eighty-seven persons were committed to the Sessions upon the charges already referred to, and upon certain other charges to which it is not necessary to refer. Of these persons only twenty-three have been convicted by the learned Judicial Commissioner, the rest being acquitted.3. The history of the district, the insurrection of the Kohls in 1831 the disturbances which broke out in the year 1858, the agitations which took place subsequently, and the grievanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1901)ILR28Cal641
Maclean, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is the legal personal representative of one Herman Robinson, and the defendants are father and son, viz., Syed Moazzim Hossein Khan Bahadur and Syed Motaher Hossein, Barrister-at-Law. I shall refer to them as the father and the son. The suit is on a foreign judgment, viz., on an ex parte judgment of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England for an amount equivalent to Rs. 6,551 and odd, a judgment recovered against both the defendants. In his defence, the father pleaded that he was not served with the writ or any copy thereof in the English action, that he had never been within the jurisdiction of the English Court, and the judgment was made without jurisdiction and was inoperative as against him. His son's defence was substantially the same, though, he admitted he had been in England for upwards of two years, but had left some time before the date of the institution of the suit. Both defendants pleaded that, on the me...
Tag this Judgment!