Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.


Calcutta High Court
Joogulkishore vs Jotendro Mohun Tagore on 6 January, 1882
Equivalent citations: (1882) ILR 8 Cal 210
Author: Pontifex
Bench: Pontifex


JUDGMENT

Pontifex, J.

1. I have already given my opinion in several cases as to the construction of the second Clause of Section 596 of Act X of 1877, which relates to a decree indirectly involving some claim or question to property of like amount or value, when the same title applies to other property as to which litigation might arise. In this case the plaintiff purchased two properties for a certain value, deriving his title from the reversionary heir of one N.C. Roy. The Tagore defendant purchased exactly the same properties, deriving their title through the widow of N.C. Roy. The question between the plaintiff and the Tagore defendant is, which has the better title to these two properties under the circumstances. The Tagore defendant has put in an affidavit, from which it appears that the value of the two properties with mesne profits would be over Rs. 10,000. The predecessors of the Tagores gave one of the properties in patni to one set of persons, and gave a patni of the other property to another set of persons, and the plaintiff was obliged, therefore, to institute two suits for the recovery of the two properties. If the predecessors of the Tagore defendant had not executed the patnis, there need only have been one suit and appeal, which would have been valued at upwards of Rs. 10,000, According to what 1 consider to be the proper construction of this clause therefore, the petitioner is entitled to appeal to Her Majesty in Council in both these cases, otherwise the act of the respondent’s predecessors might invalidate the plaintiff’s right of appeal. Let, therefore, the usual certificates be given.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.101 seconds.