CHOONEY MONEY DASSEE Vs. RAM KINKUR DUTT
LAWS(PVC)-1900-12-6
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on December 21,1900

CHOONEY MONEY DASSEE Appellant
VERSUS
RAM KINKUR DUTT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Maclean, C J - (1.) The original plaintiff in this suit was one Sreemutty Denomoney Dassee, a Hindu widow, and on the 16 September 1898, she brought an action against the defendant Chooney Money Dassee (the present appellant) alleging in effect that the defendant had wrongfully trespassed and encroached upon the plaintiff's property, and asking for a declaration that the defendant had no right to do what she was doing, for an injunction, damages, and costs.
(2.) The plaintiff's case was briefly as follows: Her husband died many years ago leaving herself and two sons, Hari Das and Bam Kinkur, surviving him, and leaving as part of his estate a certain house in Calcutta known as No. 6, Gobinda Chunder Sen's Lane. This house was eventually partitioned, and on the 16 June 1900 one-third of the house in question was allotted to the plaintiff to be held and enjoyed by her as a Hindu mother during the term of her natural life. By divers conveyances and acts in the law the defendant ultimately became the owner of the whole house, subject to the above interest of the plaintiff in one-third of it. According to the plaintiff's story the defendant then demolished a portion of the buildings allotted to the portion of the premises, allotted to the plaintiff for her life, and committed other acts of trespass, and hence the action. The defendant by her written statement denied the alleged encroachment and trespass. On or about the 22 June, 1899 the plaintiff presented a petition to the Court, and in paragraphs 4 and 5 stated as follows: That it has been arranged between the parties, that this suit should be settled on the following terms, viz., that the defendant shall buy the plaintiff's share and interest in the disputed property at a price to be settled by Babu Jodu Nath Sen of Sib Narain Dass Lane and Babu Bepin Behari Dhur of 98, Clive Street, Calcutta, as arbitrators, and in case of difference between them the question of the price is to be referred to the umpirage of R. Belchambers, Esquire, the Registrar of this Honourable Court, whose decision will be final and binding on both the parties.
(3.) "That on the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff's attorney of the sum to be fixed by the said arbitrators or the umpire, as the case may be, the plaintiff will convey all her share and right in the said property to the defendant or as she may direct," and the petitioner asked for an order referring to the arbitration of the arbitrators named "to settle the price of the plaintiff's interest and share in the disputed property," and for further relief consequential upon that price being so determined.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.