Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal794
Wilson, J.1. The main question in this case is a pure question of law,---namely, whether, by the law in force in Calcutta, the widow of an Armenian, married before the Dower Act (XXIX of 1839), is entitled to dower out of lands which her husband held during the marriage for an estate of inheritance, as against a Hindu purchaser for value from the husband during his life.2. There is, so far as I can find, no express authority upon the question. It must, therefore, be dealt with upon consideration of principle.3. The plaintiff's claim is founded upon two propositions,---1st, that, by the law of England, a widow would, under like circumstances, be entitled to-dower; 2nd, that the law of England governs the present case.4. The first of these propositions is no doubt correct. The question is as to-the second. It is often said that the law administered by this Court is,--- except in certain matters affecting Hindus and Mahomedans, and except so far as statutory provisions have modified it,--...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal442
Pontifex, J.1. It is admitted in this ease, on the findings of the lower Courts, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, unless he is barred by Section 27 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 from suing. That section gave him a limitation of one year, and the plaintiff instituted the suit after the expiration of eleven years from the date of the alleged dispossession. Now, taking the words of that Section by themselves, and putting, what I think is, a reasonable construction upon them, it seems to me they do not apply to this case, and the defendants are not entitled to insist upon them. The facts of the case are, that the defendants claim that immediately prior to the dispossession of the plaintiff, adarpatni was created in their favour, and upon its creation they at once proceeded to dispossess the plaintiff from his holding. Now the words of the section are: 'All suits to recover the occupancy or possession of any land, farm, or tenure from which a ryot, farmer, or tenant has been illegally...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal837
Field, J.1. This was a suit to recover land, and was brought against a sole defendant. That sole defendant died on the 5th September 1880, after the institution of the suit. On the 8h November 1880, that is, sixty-three days after his death, an application, which purported to be made under Section 368 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was made to the Subordinate Judge for the purpose of having the son and heir of the deceased defendant made a defendant in his stead. On the 22nd November 1880, the Subordinate Judge, considering this application out of time, because it was not made within the sixty days allowed by Article 171B of the second schedule of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877, rejected it, and made an order that the suit do abate. On the same day, that is, the 22nd November 1880, a further application was made to the Subordinate Judge that this order, directing the suit to abate, might be set aside, on the ground that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause from applying wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1885)ILR11Cal694
ORDERField and Beverley, JJ.1. We have heard the pleader for the petitioner in this matter, and we have no doubt that under the provisions of the present law this application ought to have been made within 60 days from the date of the death of the respondent. The law as laid down in the case of Ram Sunker Bhadoory 3 C.L.R. 440 was altered by the amending Act (XII of 1879), which provided that, under Sections 363 and 365, the word 'plaintiff' is to be held to include an appellant. After this amendment of the Code further doubts arose as to whether the word 'plaintiff' in Section 366 of the Code was also to be held to include an appellant see the case of Rajamonee Dabee v. Chunder Kant Sandel I.L.R. 8 Cal. 440. There are other eases in which a similar doubt arose. These doubts were removed by the amended Section 582 of the present Code, in which it is provided that 'in chapter XXI, so far as may be, the words 'plaintiff,' 'defendant' and 'suit' shall be held to include an appellant, a re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1885)ILR12Cal706
Wilson, J.1. The main question we have to answer upon this reference is, whether a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister, celebrated in Calcutta in the year 1877, is liable to be declared null and void, under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, on the ground that the parties are within the prohibited degrees, both parties being domiciled in British India and resident in Calcutta, and both being Roman Catholics. It is not found whether either of the parties to this marriage is the descendant of English ancestors, or of European settlers in this country other than English, or of native converts to Christianity, or of mixed race; their names suggest a Portuguese origin. We are bound to presume every matter of fact in favour of the validity of a marriage, and therefore if there be rules as to the prohibited degrees which would invalidate a marriage between persons connected as these were, 'and if those rules be applicable to any one class of Christians, but not to all Chr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1887)ILR14Cal37
Norris, J.1. It was contended before us by the learned pleader for the appellants that Act v. of 1881 has altered the law as laid down in Bharti v. Bharti 6 C.L.R. 138, and that it is now competent to the Mofussil Courts to grant probate or letters of administration in respect of a will not coming within the provisions of the Hindu Wills Act, that is to say, of wills of Hindus, Jainas, Sikhs, and Buddhists in the territories subject to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal and in the towns of Madras and Bombay made prior to 1st September 1870.2. In order to determine this point, it was necessary to see what the course of legislation has been.3. In 1865 the Indian Succession Act was passed. Section 331 of that Act provided that 'the provisions of this Act shall not apply to intestate or testamentary succession to the property of any Hindu, Mahomedan, or Buddhist.' * * * In 1870, the Hindu Wills Act was passed ; Section 2 of that Act, provided that certain portions of the Indian Succession A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1892)ILR19Cal469
Ghose, J.1. This is a reference by the Recorder of Rangoon. It has been made in an action for divorce instituted by a Burmese husband against his wife.2. The ground alleged in the petition presented by the husband for obtaining divorce is that the wife has deserted him for no reason whatever, and has been living separate for the last eight months, and that she would not return to his house and resume cohabitation with him. The wife, however, pleads in her written statement that the ground alleged by the petitioner is no ground for divorce according to the Buddhist law, which governs the parties, and that she is justified in not returning to cohabitation with the petitioner, because while she was living with him he used to bring to the house women of loose character and habits, and thereby subjected her to much indignity and anguish of mind, amounting in law to cruelty.3. The learned Recorder begins his judgment by stating that 'the facts are not disputed'; he then refers to a judgment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1895)ILR22Cal339
Norris and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, respondents, for possession of two-thirds of two houses with mesne profits, on the allegation that the houses belonged to one Ram Saran Ram; that on Ram Saran Ram's death the two plaintiffs and their brother defendant No. 2, as Ram Saran Ram's mother's sister's sons and his nearest heirs, became entitled to the same in equal shares; and that defendant No. 1, setting up a purchase from defendant No. 2, has been keeping the plaintiffs out of possession of their two-thirds share.2. Defendant No. 2 did not enter appearance, but defendant No. 1 defended the suit, urging, among other matters, not necessary now to consider, that the plaintiffs were not the heirs of Ram Saran Ram; that they were not related to him as they alleged, their mother Sonia and Ram Saran Ram's mother Keola not being sisters, but being cousins, that is, daughters respectively of one Hardoyal and his sister Anandi, as shewn in the gen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1898)ILR25Cal258
Maclean, C.J.1. On the 18th November 1891, judgment was given in this case by the Subordinate Judge on an appeal to him. The effect of that judgment was to dismiss the suit against the defendants (the present appellants) with costs in that Court and in the Court below. It subsequently transpired that the decree drawn up, although it gave the defendants their costs before the Subordinate Judge, did not give them their costs before the first Court, and in consequence of that error the present appellants, on the 3rd of March 1894, made an application under Section 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the decree amended and made to harmonise with the judgment, and on the 10th March 1894 that application was granted. On the 26th February 1896, the appellants, who had thus obtained a judgment in their favour for their costs, took proceedings in execution for the purpose of recovering them. Their right to do so was disputed by the judgment-debtor, and disputed upon the ground that artic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1904)ILR31Cal628
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. After stating the facts as set forth above their Lordships continued: The main grounds urged in this appeal may be summarized thus:(i) That the invontory and account filed during the early stage of the proceedings had been accepted and were final under Section 98 of Act V, and that the District Judge had no power to call for a revised inventory and account.(ii) That he had no power to call for accounts for the subsequent period.(iii) That he had no power to appoint commissioners to audit the accounts.(iv) That he had no power to commence proceedings to revoke the probate under Section 50 of Act V of 1881 on his own motion.(v) That he had no power to admit under Section 50 an. application of a person, who had no sufficient interest.There are many other grounds which deal with partieular incidents in the proceedings or with questions of fact and it is unnecessary for us to go into them.2. The consideration of the first ground depends on the question, what is the...
Tag this Judgment!