Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal461,145Ind.Cas.123
Mukerji, J.1. The Courts below have dismissed the suit which the plaintiff instituted for what has been considered by them as a suit for accounts. The main ground of their decision is that the plaintiff's right is based upon an assignment which he obtained from the proforma defendants of what has been held to be a bare right to sue within the meaning of Section 6(e), T.P. Act. The plaintiff purchased from the pro forma defendants certain immovable properties together with certain rights which were described in these words:Sheikh Deanat Hossein of Lakshmipur and Sheikh Yadali of Nayadanga have both been working under us as Tahsildars in respect of the properties described in Sch. 1-10; you will take from them to your satisfaction, either amicably or by suit, all papers relating to the collection of the properties sold, and the accounts for the period of their service, and the moneys that may be found due from them on the basis thereof.2. The question which arises for consideration which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1933Mad358
ORDERBardswell, J.1. This is a petition for excusing the delay in representing a Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. The memorandum of appeal was first filed on 14th April 1930. It was returned on 11th June 1930 for revision of the cause-title and preamble and of certain grounds, and also for the filing of certain affidavits and the stamping of the decree of the first Court. The time allowed was one week but the re-presentation was not made till 19th December 1930, that is after a delay of 155 days. The memorandum was again returned on 24th December 1930, because provisions of law had not been entered, because the affidavit did not contain certain information, because the cause title and preamble needed revision and because the petitions had not been properly stamped. The re-presentation this time was on 30th April 1931, the delay being one of 114 days. Once again the memorandum was returned because the decretal order of the first Court still remained unstamped, because so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal319
Jack, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of two suits in which the plaintiff claims paddy rent. The defendants in the suits maintain that the plaintiff is not entitled to paddy rent and that money rent only is payable. The trial Court in both cases decreed the suits for paddy rent. But on appeal the decrees were set aside and the suits were decreed at the money rent which the defendants claimed to have been payable. In Appeal No. 648 it is urged that the Court below was wrong in taking additional evidence without assigning any sufficient reasons therefor, and without giving sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut the evidence. Under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P.C., wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. There is no provision that the Court must give an opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut the evidence. We are concerned in the present case with the admissions in evidence by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 143Ind.Cas.507
Jack, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of two suits in which the plaintiff claims paddy rent. The defendant's in the suits maintain that the plaintiff is not entitled to paddy rent and that money rent only is payable. The trial Court in both cases decreed the suits for paddy rent. But on appeal the decrees were set aside and the suits were decreed at the money rent which the defendants claimed to have been payable. In Appeal No. 648 it is urged that the court below was wrong in taking additional evidence without assigning any sufficient reasons there for and without giving sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut the evidence. Under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reasons for its admission. There is no provision that the court must, give an opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut the evidence. We are concerned in the present case with the admission in evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal90
Rankin, C.J.1. In this suit which was brought on 22nd June 1928, the plaintiffs sued for the rent of a putni which under a deed dated 20th March 1876 was payable in six instalments every year and amounted to Rs. 4,920-14-0 per annum. There was a stipulation that in default of due payment of any kist for money outstanding should carry interest at 12 per cent per annum. There is no longer any dispute about the sums of money which the putnidars have paid. The plaintiffs brought the suit for rent for the period from Jyoisto 1327 to Jyoisto 1335 B.S., that is to say, from some time in 1920 to some time in 1928. It may here be noticed that the suit was not brought in 1928 until the month of June. Accordingly, in the ordinary way, under the Bengal Tenancy Act, Sch. 3, the plaintiffs would only be entitled to recover rent for a period of three years. It seems that, under the terms of the putni lease, the putnidars had, first of all, to pay the revenue that was due in respect of the property an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
The Lord Chancellor. These are the Appeals of the Banco de Portugal, hereinafter called " the Bank," and of Waterlow and Sons, Limited, hereinafter called " Messrs. Waterlow ", from an Order of the Court of Appeal dated the 26th day of March, 1931, varying the Judgment and Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Wright, dated the 12th day of January, 1931. The Learned Judge directed judgment to be entered for the Bank for 569,421 with costs. The Court of Appeal, by a majority consisting of Lord Justice Greer and Lord Justice Slesser, directed that judgment should be entered for the Bank for the reduced sum of 300,000, Lord Justice Scrutton dissenting from that Judgment, for in his view the Bank of Portugal was only entitled to the sum of 8,922, which was covered by a payment by the Defendants into Court of 10,000. The Bank is the Central Bank of Portugal and is incorporated by Special Charter under the Laws of Portugal. Since 1887 it has held from the Government of Portugal an exclusive li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1935All234
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court reversing the decree of the lower appellate Court.2. It appears that one Inayat Khan and his three brothers were entitled to 5/6 share in a village, the remaining 1/6th belonged to a lady. Instead of mortgaging his 1/4 out of the 5/6, Inayat Khan made a mortgage of 1/4 share in the village to the present plaintiffs. This came to about 17 bighas odd and the remaining 1/4 of 1/6 came to about 2 bighas. Subsequently a sale-deed was taken from the lady in the names of the sons of Inayat Khan and their wives whose names were entered in the revenue papers. The defendants, in execution of a money decree against the sons and their wives, got 1/4 of 1/6 share belonging to the lady attached and put up for sale, and they purchased it themselves. Now, the plaintiffs have brought this suit for sale, on the basis of their mortgage-deed and wish to enforce the security against the ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal691
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal by one Geoffrey Cornwallis Montogomery against an order of my learned brother Costello made in the winding up under an order of the Court of the Sikdar Iron Works Ltd. The company was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court made in 1925 and, in August of that year one Mr. L. S. Bavin was appointed Official Liquidator by the Court. On 27th August, by an order made by consent of certain persons, Mr. Bavin was given all the powers conferred by Section 179, Companies Act, and was given liberty to carry on the business of the company for a limited time and to arrange for finance upon such terms as he should think fit. This order of 27th August was not unfortunately brought to the notice of the learned Judge who hoard the present application on the original side. In June 1927 the usual steps were taken by Mr. Bavin as the Official Liquidator for having the list of contributories settled by the Court on the 13th of that month. Notices appear to have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1932All561
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption brought by him for recovery of possession of the property in suit on payment of Rs. 400, which is alleged to be the market value of such property, on the allegation that Rs. 1,200, the consideration entered in the sale deed executed by defendants 2 to 7 in favour of defendant 1, does not represent the actual price and has been fictitiously mentioned to deprive the plaintiff of his right of pre-emption. The Court of first instance decreed the claim on payment of Rs. 400 on a finding that the price entered in the sale deed was not the actual price. The lower appellate Court took a contrary view on the question of the price shown in the sale deed being the actual price; and in allowing the plaintiff's claim to pre-emption it made him liable to pay the entire sum of Rs. 1,200. The only question in dispute in second appeal is whether the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the Sensible consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1932)34BOMLR267; 136Ind.Cas.868
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two applications in revision against two convictions passed by the Presidency Magistrate, fourth Court. In application No. 243 Dr. Lam was charged with keeping a common gaming house and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 4(a) of Bombay Act IV of 1887, and in the other case four persons who were in Dr. Lam's premises were charged with being found in a common gaming house and thereby committing offences under Section 5 of the saidAct.2. Now the evidence is of two kinds. In the first place there is the evidence of a witness named Chand Gulab who says that he was given by the police a marked five rupee note and five marked rupee coins and that he went with that money to Dr. Lam's room and there made certain bets and that Dr. Lam took the marked money for the purposes of the bets, The learned Magistrate says that Chand Gulab is a reliable witness, and he accepts his story. But the difficulty I have in accepting the story is that as so...
Tag this Judgment!