Kolkata Court February 1891 Judgments
Sailaja Kant Das Mahapatra, Minor, by His Guardian Chowdhury Radha Kan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal385
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. These issues 4, 5 and 6 were tried together, and as to them the Subordinate Judge says: 'I am of opinion that there is abundant evidence in the case that No. 1 defendant, Santomoni, the widow of the late Bissonath Das Mahapatra, according to the directions contained in her husband's will, dated 3rd Falgoon 1290, which gave her authority to adopt, really adopted as her son the minor plaintiff, who was the natural son of Radha Kant Das Mahapatra, on 8th Kartick 1292, Amli (22nd October 1884) by performing religious ceremonies as provided in the Shastras.' This finding is appealed against in the grounds of appeal, but at the bar here it was admitted that it could not be successfully attacked, and therefore it must stand confirmed.2. The Subordinate Judge then discusses the question as to the validity of the adoption upon the assumption that Krishna Gobind Das had not advised it or consented to it, and upon this point he says: 'It is urged that as the adoption of...
Tag this Judgment!Abul Fata Mahomed Ishak and ors. Vs. Rasamaya Dhur Chowdhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal399
Tottenham and Trevelyan, JJ.1. The question which we have to decide in this appeal is whether a certain deed, dated the 21st December 1868, and purporting to be a wakfnamah, did create a valid wakf according to Mahomedan law.2. The deed was executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of all their immoveable property without particularising the various items of which that property consisted. They appointed themselves mutwalis, and for some years described themselves as such in collection papers and other documents connected with the management of property. But in 1874. they declared that they had revoked the wakf by reason of their necessities, and thenceforth they dealt with the property as if no wakf existed. The defendant No. 1, who had become much involved in debt, mortgaged and alienated numerous parcels of the property. This suit was instituted in 1888 by his sons as beneficiaries under the deed of wakf to have it declared that all the property was wakf, to recover from the tran...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ram Kumari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal264
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Pergunnahs under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code of the offence of marrying again during the lifetime of her husband, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentence not being an appealable one, the case comes before us by way of revision.2. The facts found by the Court below are shortly these. The petitioner and one Dukhi were originally both Hindus belonging to the Chattri caste, the former being, however, an illegitimate offspring of Chattri parents. They were duly married according to Hindu rites. Some time after the marriage the petitioner Ram Kumari became a convert to Mahdmedanism, and after her conversion married a Mahomedan named Guzaffer.3. Upon these facts the learned Sessions Judge has held that the petitioner's marriage with Dukhi was a valid Hindu marriage, that it was not dissolved by her conversion to Mahomedanism, and tha...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Solomon Bhamji Vs. Mahomed Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal296
Wilson, J.1. The plaintiff sues on allegations in his plaint which are in substance to this effect:The now defendant, in execution of a decree of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes against a third person, caused to be attached a pair of horses which, the plaintiff says, are his property. The plaintiff filed a claim in the Small Cause Court, and his claim was disallowed with costs. He applied for a new trial, and his application was refused. He now sues to establish his title to the horses, and for damages.2. The case came on for settlement of issues, and the question for decision is whether, on the above statement of facts, this suit will lie. Had the previous proceedings taken place in a Court other than the Small Cause Court, there is no doubt that such a suit could be maintained, for it is expressly given by Section 283 of the Civil Procedure Code; and if it can be maintained, there is no doubt that this is the proper Court. But the case stands on a different footing by reason of th...
Tag this Judgment!Goghun Mollah and ors. Vs. Rameshur NaraIn Mahta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal271
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. These rules arise out of an application made by the proprietor of a mouza, under Section 84 of the Tenancy Act, to acquire by compulsory sale a small piece of land made up of parts of several raiyati holdings within his estate. The application was opposed, and the matter has been brought before this Court by the proprietors of an indigo factory, who have taken under leases the greater part of the lands of the village, including the holdings within which this small plot of land is comprised, from the raiyats.2. The applicant is the zemindar of the mouza, and has himself constructed an indigo factory in the mouza, and has employed a European manager for it and his estate; and the present contest is not between the zemindar and the raiyats in the ordinary sense of the words, but is one between the European managers of rival indigo factories. The Collector of the district granted to the applicant a certificate under Section 84, that the purpose for which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Annoda Prosad Mullick and anr. Vs. BepIn Behari Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal324
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. As the point, so far at any rate as this Court is concerned, is a new one, I will state the facts and give the reason for the conclusion at which we have arrived.2. It appears that the plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendant. Five persons were nominated as arbitrators to settle the matter in dispute between the parties. There is no evidence to show that any one of these five persons had been previously communicated with by either of the parties, and therefore nothing to show that any of them had given his consent to accept the position of an arbitrator. The so-called five arbitrators were appointed by the Munsif at the suggestion of the respective parties in Court. It appears that one of these five persons abstained, as the Judge finds, from taking any notice of the nomination, and refrained from any action whatever in the matter. The Munsif thereupon nominated, as he called it, a fifth arbitrator.3. We think that that proceeding on the part of the Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Debya and anr. Vs. Mahamed Arif
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal259
Tottenham and Trevelyan, JJ.1. The facts which it is necessary to state before determining the questions of law in this case are shortly as follows:2. Two brothers, Beerbullub Deb and Chandra Kishore Deb, were owners of the land in dispute. They had inherited it from their maternal grandfather through their mother. In a proceeding under Act XL of 1858 their father was appointed their guardian, and without receiving the necessary authority from the Court, sold the property to the defendants, who are now in possession of it.3. After this Beerbullub and Chandra Kishore, the former having attained majority, the latter being over 18 but under 21, and therefore according to law still a minor, conveyed this property to the plaintiff. Both the conveyance to the plaintiff and that to the defendants were made bond fide and for good consideration. There can be no question that the defendants have got no title.4. The reported cases, the last of which is Harendra Narain Singh Chowdhry v. Moran I.L....
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Dass Vs. Jasadamoni Dassi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal252
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. This matter comes before us under Section 17 of Act IV of 1869 for confirmation of the decree nisi made by the District Judge of Bankura for the dissolution of the marriage of the parties to those proceedings. The petitioner and respondent were originally Hindus by religion, and were married in this country whilst professing the Hindu faith. After their marriage they both became converts to Christianity. On the 18th of December 1889 the petitioner presented a petition to the District Judge of Bankura for the dissolution of his marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery with the correspondent, and the learned Judge, holding the adultery established, made a declaration to the following effect: 'It is hereby declared that the marriage of the petitioner, Gobardhan Dass, a native convert, with Jasadamoni Dassi, the respondent, is hereby dissolved subject to the confirmation of the order by the High Court under Section 17 of the Act.'2. A doubt having been r...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Pershad Singh and ors. Vs. Ugrah Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR18Cal255
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. This matter comes before the Court on appeal from an order of the District Judge of Shahabad, and a rule to set aside the order of the Munsif, out of which that of the District Judge arose. The appeal to the District Judge was dismissed by him, on the ground that no appeal lay in the case. That question has not been argued before us, and the real question arises upon the rule.2. A decree for rent was obtained by the landlord against the applicant, and the tenure was put up for sale in execution of the decree, and sold to the present respondent on 30th October 1889. On 25th November 1889 the applicant presented the following petition to the Munsif in whose Court the action had been brought:Petition for reversal of auction sale for arrears of rent under Section 174, Act VIII of 1885.Present:Purna Chunder Dey, Roy Bahadoor, Munsif at Buxar, District Shahabad. No. 423 of 1889.Maharajah Radha Pershad Singh Bahadoor (decree-holder) v. Ugrah Lall (judgment-debto...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›