Privy Council Cases

Ram Lochun Deb and ors. Vs. Bhugirath Patoni and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal275

Prinsep, J.1. In the year 1869, the plaintiffs sued the present defendants and those who represent the half-share of the tenure for arrears of rent and obtained an ex parte decree in the Court of the Deputy Collector at the rate of Rs. 37-4 per annum for the half-share now in dispute. In the year 1870, they sued the tenants of the other half-share at the same rate. That suit was contested and was dismissed, but in appeal a decree was given at the rate admitted by those defendants, namely, Rs. 15, for that half-share.2. In the present case the plaintiffs rely on the ex parte decree of 1869. The defendants, on the other hand, produce the decree in the suit of 1870 against the tenants of the other share, and claim to be treated in the same way. There is no evidence on the record except those two decrees. The lower Appellate Court, setting aside the judgment of the first Court, considered that, inasmuch as the defendants in the present suit had not obtained a reversal of the ex parte decre...

In Re: Radhabullubh Sil

Court : Kolkata

Field, J.1. The appellant in this case, Oomamoni Dassee, is the guardian of her minor son Radhabullubh. She holds a certificate under Act XL of 1858, and she has also obtained a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860. It appears that certain Bank of Bengal shares form a portion of the property belonging to the minor, and the appellant obtained power, under the certificate granted to her under Act XXVII of 1860, to draw the dividends falling due upon those shares. After the passing of the Presidency Banks Act, XI of 1876, she applied to be registered under the provisions of Section 4 of that Act. The portion of this section, which is material to the present case, is as follows:The several persons who are then proprietors and shareholders of each of the present Banks of Bengal and Madras, or executors or administrators of such proprietors and shareholders respectively, shall be entitled to be registered as proprietors and holders of a like quantity of stock and a proportionate number of sha...

Raja Sheopersad Singh Vs. Bilasmoni Dasi and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal664

R. Couch, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Calcutta whereby the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpore was reversed, and the respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, was awarded possession of Mouza Balwani with mesne profits thereof from the 22nd of August 1876, together with interest and costs.2. Mouza Balwani is situate within, and forms part of, Pargana Gedhour, the respondent's ancestral zamindari. On the 21st of February 1798, a patta was granted by the Government to Raja Gopal Singh and Raja Bharat Singh, therein described as zamindars of Pargana Gedhour, in which it is stated that the annual consolidated jama of the said Pargana, inclusive of the ganjats, markets, bazaars, all sayers and motahariffas, and also of rent-free lands held under sanads and without sanads, had, together with the fee of kanungos, been fixed and assessed permanently at sicca Rs. 15,001 from 1205 Fasli. In the register of Pargana Gedhour for the year 1205 Fasli, the gross pro...

Uramkumarath Kannan Nayar Vs. Uramkumarath Tenju Nayar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad1

Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. It is contended that plaintiff is barred under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure as regards items 5-9, and as regards items 1-4, by Section 13.2. The Suit 928 of 1878 was terminated by a karar to which first defendant was not a party. First defendant, however, though not a party to the karar, was a party to a petition to the Court saying that he had surrendered the lands in pursuance of the karar, and asking the Court to draw up a decree dismissing the suit. 3. Suit 912 of 1879 was brought by plaintiff to enforce the terms of the karar, as 1st defendant, though in the petition he had stated that he had surrendered the lands, had not actually done so, but persisted in retaining them. First defendant, however, demurred to this suit, saying that he was not a party to the karar.4. The plaintiff then withdrew the suit with permission to bring a fresh suit on. his general rights as Karnavan to recover the property from first defendant.5. He then insti...

Ramasami Vs. Ramasami

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad115

1. Plaintiff sued to recover from defendant certain specified land in the village of Kiluveli of Kiliyanur which is equal to one-sixth of the land defendant holds. He said that on 21st November 1861 he entered into a deed of exchange with defendant whereby he was to get one-fourth of the four karais defendant then held in the village of Kiluveli of Kiliyanur, and defendant some lands of plaintiff' in another village; that for convenience sake they had arranged that plaintiff and defendant should enjoy the land jointly, but share the produce in the proportions due to each; and that they had been acting on this arrangement till recently when defendant carried off the produce of the two years Dhatu and lswara; and that hence an apportionment of the lands became necessary. He further said that since the exchange effected in 1861 defendant had acquired two more karais of land in the same village and that plaintiff's share was therefore one-sixth. Defen-dant in his written statement admitted...

Lehareaux Vs. Ashruffunnissa and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal272

Field, J.1. It appears to us that we cannot say that the District Judge was wrong in rejecting a petition of this kind, which was not supported by affidavit and which was not even verified by the defendants on whose behalf it was presented.2. Now, the first question that has been raised before us is, whether, under the circumstances, the defendants are entitled to appeal against the ex parte decree without having first resorted to the procedure laid down in Section 108. It appears to us that they are entitled to appeal. Section 101 is as follows: 'If the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte, and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, he may, upon such terms as the Court directs as to costs or otherwise, be heard in answer to the suit.' It appears to us that what the Legislature here intended was, that the defendant might be admitted to defend the suit merely upon a petition, and without any evidence bein...

John Francis Pereira Vs. Helen Charlotte Pereira and Eugene Bonjour

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad118

1. We consider the evidence sufficient to show that the respondent committed adultery with the co-respondent in October 1879; that the petitioner received reasonably probable information respecting the respondent's misconduct and, by continuing co-habitation, condoned it--Dillon v. Dillon 3 Curteis 112; but that the subsequent misconduct of the respondent shown by the occurrences of January 1880, though falling short of, but tending to, adultery, revived the condoned adultery--Winscom v. Winscom and Plowden 3 Sw. & Tr. 380 and that the petitioner is consequently entitled to a decree.2. We confirm the decree dissolving the marriage with costs to be paid by the co-respondent....

Jogendro Chunder Ghose Vs. NobIn Chunder Chottopadhya and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal353

Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the durpatnidar of the twelve-anna share of a certain estate. It appears that this estate was originally a one-anna or one-sixteenth of a larger estate; but that point is not material to the question with which we have now to deal, and for the purposes of this case, this one-anna share is taken as sixteen annas or a whole estate. This three-fourths share is registered on the Collectorate towzee under a separate number, 652, while the remaining one-fourth share is registered under number 654. Now it would [356] appear that this separate registration is merely for the purposes of the payment of the Government revenue; and it is admitted that the lands of the three-fourths or twelve-anna share and of the one-fourth or four-anna share have never been separated by metes and bounds. The plaintiff, as durpatnidar of the three-fourths share, measured the land in the occupation of the defendants, and served notice of enhancement under the provisions of ...

Grish NaraIn Moonshee Vs. Noimollah Pramanick

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal674

Prinsep, J.1. The only ground taken before us in this appeal is, that it being an appeal from an order under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure remanding the case, the appellant in second appeal is entitled to ask us to consider the facts on which the lower Appellate Court passed the order of remand. It appears to us that this is altogether opposed to the principle of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, except in the cases provided for in chap. xlii, allows no second appeal. As we understand Section 588, Clause 28, we are competent merely to consider whether, on the findings of fact by the lower Appellate Court, that Court was right in remanding the case under Section 562. It would be a striking anomaly if it were possible, on an appeal such as this against an interlocutory order, for us to do more than we could do against the final order passed in the same case,--that is to say, to deal with findings of fact by the lower Appellate Court.2. We dismiss this appeal with costs....

Raj Chundra Chuckerbutty and ors. Vs. Kinoo Khan and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal329

Prinsep, J.1. In both the lower Courts this suit has been dismissed, on the ground that it was barred by limitation, being a suit to set aside a sale for arrears of Government revenue, and not being brought within one year from the date on which the sale became final.2. We are of opinion that, having regard to the terms of the plaint and the case that was made before the lower Courts, the suit has been rightly dismissed. The learned pleader who appears for the appellants, has attempted to show that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief on the ground of fraud, and next he has attempted to maintain, on the authority of the judgment of the Pull Bench case of Baijnath Sahu v. Lala Sital Prasad 2 B.L.R. F.B. 1 that the suit does not come within Clause 12 of the 2nd schedule of the Limitation Act of 1877, because it being alleged that no arrear of revenue was due, the proceeding of the Collector was ultra vires, inasmuch as the sale was not properly held under Act XI of 1859, and that the s...