Privy Council Cases

Radhica Prosonno Chunder Vs. Zoolfun Bibee

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal561

L.S. Jackson, J.1. Against the latter part of the judgment the plaintiff appealed to the District Court, and the effect of the District Judge's judgment was this--that although the defendant might have held this land and paid the rent for twelve years and more, yet that, as she was not paying to the plaintiff, but held the land as a portion of a different estate, the right of occupancy, which the Kent Law recognizes and affirms, could not grow up in such circumstances. He says: 'The defendant's jote is in the mudur land, and her encroachment on julpai land, over which neither she nor her vendor had any right, cannot give her a right of occupancy: she was simply a trespasser.' He went on: 'The finding of the lower Court, that the land is part of the julpar estate, is tantamount to a finding that the defendant is only a trespasser. The respondent's pleader argues that as she was acknowledged as a tenant by her lessor, she cannot be treated as a trespasser and ejected, but the party whose...

Chinto Abaji Kulkarni Vs. Lakshmibai Kom Sakharam Antaji

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom375

Michael Westropp, C.J.1. It does not appear that the right of the plaintiff to a Share in the vatan property has ever been disputed by the defendant, or that any possession which she has had of it, or of a share in it, has been disturbed.. So that, in deciding this case, our decree cannot affect her interest in, or possession of, that property in any respect. The Subordinate Judge has declared her to be the representative vatandar of her husband's branch of the family. The High Court, even before the passing of Bombay Act III of 1874, never went so far as to declare any member of a family or branch of a family of vatandars to be the representative of that family or branch. It expressly refused so to do: Abaji v. Niloji 2 Bom. H.C. Rep. 342. It has declared a person to be eligible to officiate--Ningangavda v. Satyangavda 11 Bom. H.C. Rep. 232--but not that he was so in preference to any other member of the vatani family. Since Bombay Act III of 1874 became law, none but representative v...

Shib NaraIn Shaha and anr. Vs. BipIn Behary Biswas and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Kemp, J.1. The pleader for the special appellant refers to Bagram v. Wise 1 B.L.R. F.B. 91 and contends that the finding of the Judge is wrong. In that case the late learned Chief Justice, Siv Barnes Peacock, who delivered the judgment of the Full Bench, remarked, that 'as soon as a copy of the decree, which is sent for execution to another Court, is filed in the Court to which it is transmitted, it has the same effect as a decree of that Court,' and 'that Court,' that is to say, the Court to which the decree is transmitted, 'is to proceed to execute it according to its own rules in the like cases.'2. No doubt the Munsif of Julpigori had authority and was competent to execute a decree of the Munsif of Rungpore that was transmitted to him, provided lie had jurisdiction; but this is a case which, in our opinion, is not covered by the decision of the Full Bench quoted above. This was an application to the Munsif of Julpigori not to execute the original decree passed by the Munsif of Rungp...

Bhyrub Chunder Vs. Golap Coomary

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal518

Kemp, J.1. Who was of opinion that the cases quoted conclusively showed that an appeal could not be maintained....

Gopal Chand Marwaree Vs. Thakurani Mohakoom Kooaree and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal314

Kennedy, J.1. The general principle seems well settled that the existence of an unstamped promissory note does not prevent the lender of money from recovering on the original consideration, if the pleadings are properly framed for that purpose: Farr v. Price 1 East 55. In this country, the great power given of raising the true issues between the parties prevents the question of pleading having much importance. Our only difficulty arose from the decision of Sir E. Couch in Ankur Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Madhub Chunder Ghose 21 W.R. 1. When that case, however, is examined, it does not support the proposition for which it was cited by the respondents' pleader. It is not very satisfactorily reported, there being no note of the argument or statement of the facts; but so far as we can gather, there had been no attempt in the lower Court to give independent evidence of the consideration, the contention for the plaintiff' being that there was a sufficient admission of the note in the written st...

Gobind Ram Marwary Vs. Mathoora Sabooya and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal339

Jackson, J.1. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff, and, it may be said, virtually dismissed his suit, on the ground that notice--that is to say, formal written notice--of dishonour had not been served on the defendants. Now, neither the case which the lower Appellate Court cites, Anunt Ram Agurwala v. Nuthall 21 W.R. 62 nor any other case, has been brought to our notice which decides that in this country either a written formal notice of dishonour is necessary, or that the absence of such a notice would be a sufficient defence unless it is shown that by such absence the defendant has been prejudiced. So far, therefore, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court appears to be erroneous, and must be set aside. [The learned Judge then proceeded to consider the other points in the case, and with reference to them, the case was remanded to the lower Appellate Court.]...

Jonmenjoy Mullick Vs. Doss Money Dossee

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal364

Kennedy, J.1. The present suit is brought against the mortgagor and the first auction-purchaser to enforce the lien created by the mortgage bond against these lands.2. The difficulty in which the plaintiff has been placed is entirely one of his own creation. Instead of suing the mortgagor on his bond, and obtaining a decree declaring his lien and directing the lands to be sold towards satisfaction of it, he adopted a course which ensured the lands being sold so as to realize the smallest price possible. The course is one frequently adopted in Bengal, but this frequency cannot make it less liable to be stigmatized as oppressive if not fraudulent.3. However this may be, the question for us now to decide is, whether the present suit can be maintained, and we have come to the conclusion that it cannot; and that the decision of the Full Bench in Haran Chunder Ghose v. Dinobundhoo Bose 14 B.L.R. 408 : S.C. 23 W.R. 187 precludes us from giving the relief he sought.4. In the second suit, which...

Unnoda Prasad Roy Vs. Sheikh Koorpan Ally

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal519

Kemp, J.1. The decree-holder is the special appellant in this case. The question is, whether the application which was made on the 19th of June 1875, is within time or not. The Judge of Tipperah has held that it is not. The grounds of special appeal taken are: first, that the lower Appellate Court is wrong in holding that the last application for execution was barred by limitation; second, that the lower Appellate Court is wrong in holding that the proceedings in execution taken before the passing of Act IX of 1871 are to be governed by the said law. The contention of the pleader who appears for the decree-holder on the first ground raised in special appeal is, that a notice having been issued under the provisions of Section 216, on the 7th of August 1872, and the present application being dated the 19th June 1875, he is within time, and that the Judge was not competent to look behind the date of the notice, and to take cognizance of any proceeding which had been taken before the date ...

Parbutty Dossee Vs. Poran Sookh Chunder and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1878)ILR3Cal612

L.S. Jackson, J.1. It appears to us that the objection taken during the argument of this special appeal, although it was not taken in the memorandum of appeal, is a valid objection to the decision. The facts of this case are shortly these: (The learned Judge stated the facts of the case as set out above, and having remarked that the particular question before the Court might not have been discussed by the defendants in the Court of first instance continued).--The defendants appeal specially to this Court, and of course we are not only entitled, but bound to consider an objection which raises the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit and to obtain the decree which she asked for. It has been constantly ruled in this Court and in the other High Courts, and the law is stated in the case noticed by Mr. Broughton in his edition of Act VIII of 1859--Padagalingam Pillay v. Skanrmigham Pillay 2 Mad. H.C.R. 333--that a suit ought not to be maintained where 'the plainti...

Hurro Soonderee Dossee Vs. Nilkunto Dey

Court : Kolkata

L.S. Jackson, J.1. The question which we have to determine in this case relates to the sufficiency or insufficiency of an attachment which the defendant, special appellant, had effected, and in respect of which he seeks to invalidate a mortgage set up by the plaintiff of certain rights which the other defendants, Nos. 1 and 2, had to receive in a specified amount from the Collector annually as compensation for their extinguished rights to certain lakhiraj land. The attachment was made under Section 237 of the repealed Code of Civil Procedure, and if that attachment was sufficient, then by Section 240 the mortgage made during the attachment was invalid, and the purchaser at the execution-sale would have acquired a right to receive such money free of any such mortgage. It is contended that it is an attachment duly made under Section 237, inasmuch as the property consisted of money in the hands of an officer of Government, which was or might become payable to the defendant or on his behal...