Privy Council Cases

Jogul Kishore Vs. Jotendro Mohun Tagore and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal357

Richard Garth, C.J.1. The two suits (Nos. 63 and 64) out of which this appeal arises were brought to recover possession of a share in an ancestral estate which originally belonged to Neelcanth Roy.2. Neelcanth Roy left six sons, who lived together in commensality and carried on a joint business, each having a sixth of the ancestral property.3. The eldest of these sons was Bhoirub Rai, who died leaving a daughter, Woomamoyee, and two grandchildren.4. Two days before Bhoirub's death, it was alleged by his brothers that he executed a hibanama, the effect of which was to disinherit his owe daughter and grandchildren, and to convey his share of the property (subject to certain provisions for the maintenance of his own family) to his surviving brothers.5. The existence of this alleged hibanama appears to have been kept secret for some time. Bhoirub died in the year 1822, and after his death the family continued to live together as before in commensality, the eldest male member acting as the ...

Sibbosoondery Dabia Vs. Bussoomutty Dabia and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal191

Wilson, J.1. This is a suit by a widow to enforce her claim to a share in certain properties of her deceased husband, which are being partitioned between he husband's descendants. The husband was one of five brothers, and those five brothers and their descendants continued to live jointly till the partition in question; he died leaving a widow (the plaintiff) and two sons. The first son was Suttya Runjun, who died before the partition decree, leaving his daughter Bussoomutty (the first defendant) his only daughter and heiress. The second son, Suttya Krishna, was alive at the date of the passing of the partition decree; he has since died, leaving four sons, the infant defendants, his heirs, Suttya Bhoosun, Suttessur, Suttya Nundo and Suttyajeet. The partition suit was instituted some years ago for the partition of the whole family property, and the decree in that suit was made on the 28th November 1872. That decree gave Suttya Krishna, the son of Suttya Prosunno, five-thirtieths, and Bu...

BallIn Vs. BallIn and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal218

Wilson, J.1. This is a suit brought to determine the construction of the will of Mrs. Anna Maria Ballin.2. The will is prior to the Succession Act; and has, therefore, to be construed according to the rules of English law without reference to that Act.3. The will is somewhat informally framed. It commences by certain specific bequests and devises. It proceeds:---'I bequeath the residue of my personal estate to the Administrator-General, upon trust, to stand possessed of my dwelling-house and premises situate No. 30, Theatre Road,' and another dwelling-house, and the residue of the personal estate, upon trust, till a mortgage-debt was paid off, to pay a monthly sum to the testatrix's daughter Mary Margaret, and subject to that payment to apply the rents and profits in satisfaction of the mortgage. 'And after satisfaction of the said mortgage-debt as to my said house and premises situate No. 30, Theatre Road, upon trust, to pay the rents and profits thereof to my said daughter Mary Marga...

Punnoo Singh and ors. Vs. NirghIn Singh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal298

Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit is brought against the defendants for the rent of a jote for the years 1283, 1284, and 1285, the plaintiffs claiming at the rate of Rs. 2 per bigha.2. They say in their plaint that they are, properly speaking, entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 2-8 per bigha, but that the recovery of such higher rent depends 'upon the adoption of other steps,' by which we understand them to mean, that to recover the higher rent they must bring a suit for enhancement.3. The answer of the defendants is this, that the plaintiffs brought a previous suit against them for the years 1281 and 1282, in which they claimed rent for the same jote at the rate of Rs. 2-8 per bigha; that their answer to that suit was, as it is now, that their proper rent was fifteen annas per bigha; and that in that suit, as the plaintiffs failed to prove the rate of Rs. 2-8 [301] which they claimed, a decree was given in their favor for the sum which the defendants admitted,-namely, at the rate of fi...

Rajendro Kishore Singh Vs. Bulaky Mahton and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal367

Richard Garth, C.J.1. It has been contended before us, that as regards the claim for the value of the trees, the plaintiff's rights are saved by Section 14 of the last Limitation Act.2. That section enacts, that, in computing the period of limitation, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another suit against the defendants shall be excluded, when the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action, and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.'3. Now it seems that the plaintiff, sometime ago, brought a suit for the value of these trees in the name of a person who sued as his manager; and the suit was dismissed by the High Court, on the ground that as manager he had no right to sue on behalf of the plaintiff. It is argued that this was a suit prosecuted by the plaintiff (within the meaning of Section 14) in good faith, and in a Court which from defect of...

Woopendro Nath Sircar and anr. Vs. Brojendranath Mundul

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal346

Pontifex, J.1. In this case the appellants are the judgment debtors, and they sought under Section 311 to set aside a sale made under a mortgage decree on the ground of irregularity, alleging that they had sustained substantial injury by reason of that irregularity, the full price for the property not having been obtained. The plaintiff in the suit in which the property was sold was a mortgagee, and he obtained leave to bid, and purchased two lots at the sale.2. Now it appears that his uncle Radhamohun, who is joint in estate and lives in commensality with him, had been appointed by the Court of Wards the manager of one of the infant defendants; and this purchase by the plaintiff-holder, was in fact a purchase for the benefit of the joint 'family, as is not denied by the pleader for the decree-holder. Now some evidence was read before us, showing that there was irregularity with respect to one of 'these lots, in publishing the proclamation of sale on the premises, and that the full pri...

Reasut HosseIn and anr. Vs. Chorwar Singh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal470

Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are some of the representatives in title of one Bibi Noorun, who granted a (sic)uokurari lease to the defendants' predecessors in title, so long ago as the 25th Bysack 1232.2. The suit is brought to eject the defendants from the property upon the ground that they have been guilty of certain breaches of covenant; and that, consequently, under a condition of re-entry contained in the lease, they have forfeited their tenure. The other representatives of Bibi Noorun's interest, who are co-sharers with the plaintiffs in her estate, are averse to bringing this suit, and consequently they have been made defendants.3. The Court below has dismissed the suit on several grounds, and amongst others, that the defendants have not been guilty of the breaches of covenant with which they were charged.4. From this decision the plaintiffs have appealed; and we think that we may dismiss the appeal upon this one ground only, that one or more of several join...

Doorga NaraIn Sen Vs. Ram Lall Chhutar

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal330

Pontifex, J.1. A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of these, appeals, on the ground that, under Section 102 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869, no second appeal would lie in these cases. We think that this objection must prevail. The facts of the case are---that two persons, the plaintiff Doorga Narain and one Banimadhub, were contesting with one another as to who was rightfully entitled to the property in which the defendants had tenures and both of them brought rent suits against the tenants. These rent suits came first before the Subordinate Judge, and afterwards before the District Judge. Subsequently to the institution of those rent suits, Doorga Narain brought a suit against Banimadhub to establish his title, and whilst that suit was pending, the District Judge allowed the rent cases to stand over, thinking he might decide them in accordance with the decision which might be arrived at in the title suit. He decided the suit between Doorga Narain and Banimadhub in Banimadhub's ...

Shama Soondary Vs. Hurro Soondary and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Morris, J.1. The plaintiff, as a member of a partnership concern, brings this suit against her co-partners and certain persons, who have acted as servants of the concern, to obtain from them certain account papers which she specifies. She estimates the loss arising from the defendants not rendering these accounts to her at Rs. 4,000, but she values the suit at Rs. 10 only, as she seeks to obtain a simple declaratory decree, and intimates her intention of bringing a 1 further suit for account alter she has received the account papers which she requires.2. The first Court framed certain issues, none of which had reference to the valuation of the suit, and finally gave a partial decree in favour of the plaintiff. Against this judgment the defendants appealed, and their memorandum of appeal was engrossed on a stamp of like valuation. The District Judge, on taking up the appeal, was of opinion that the plaint bere an inadequate stamp, and under the proviso in the 1st clause of Section 12 of...

Golam Ali Vs. Kali Krishna Thakur

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal479

Pontifex, J.1. I am of opinion that the accretion, which, under Reg. XI of 1825, Section 4, Clause 1, must be considered an increment to the defendant's tenure, should be governed by the terms and conditions applicable to the parent tenure as provided in the kabuliat under which such parent tenure is held.2. The defendant having admitted his liability to pay some rent, the question to be decided is, what construction should be placed on the words 'increase of rent to which he may be justly liable' contained in that Regulation.3. The use of the word increase seems to show that consideration is to be given to the rent reserved on the parent tenure. If rent was assessable without reference to the rent reserved on the parent tenure, then I should have expected it to have been expressed as follows:---'The accretion shall not be exempt from the payment of rent which may justly be assessed upon it.'4. Supposing a perpetual tenure had been created at a pepper com rent, without any salami or bo...