CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsFull Bench

Kristo Kamini Dasi vs The Maharajah of Burdwan and Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 14 August 1883 · Citation: (1883) ILR (Cal) 931

HON’BLE JUDGES
Richard Garth, C.J · Tottenham, J · Prinsep, J · Mitter, J · McDonell, J
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 143 words
1.

We are of opinion that in this case the notice was insufficient.

2.

If there is a cutcheri upon the land of the defaulting patnidar, (by which expression we mean the land of the taluk in question), we think that the notice must be published at that cutcheri.

3.

If there is no such cutcheri, the notice must be published at the principal town or village within the taluk.

4.

We think also that the mere delivery of the notice to the patnidar, or one of his amlas, is not sufficient; but that it must be published in the manner required by the section. The necessity for accurately conforming to both provisions of the Regulation is laid down authoritatively by the Judicial Committee in the case of the Maharajah of Burdwan v. Tara Soondery Debia LR 10 IA 19: sc ante 619