Kolkata Court March 1894 Judgments
Mahmudi Sheikh Vs. Aji Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal622
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. A Magistrate exercising powers of the third class convicted Aji Sheikh of criminal trespass under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 10, or, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for seven days. He further submitted the case to the District Magistrate, with a recommendation that the accused should, under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be bound over to keep the peace. The District Magistrate has required Aji Sheikh to furnish security to keep the peace, and the matter is now before us in revision on a reference by the Sessions Judge.2. We are of opinion that the order of the District Magistrate is illegal and must be set aside. The order of the District Magistrate professes to have been made under Section 349 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section, however, contemplates that when the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the offence under trial finds the accused guilty of that offence, but considers that he is...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Sulliman Vs. Mahomed Golab
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal612
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. Early in the year 1892 a suit was brought by Mahomed Golab, the present defendant, in the Small Cause Court of Rangoon, against Ismail Khan and Mahomed Sulliman, the present plaintiff, on a promissory note dated the 21st of May 1891, made by Ismail Khan in favour of Mahomed Sulliman and by him endorsed to the plaintiff.2. The suit came on for hearing on the 17th of February 1892, when it appears from the record of the proceedings that Ismail Khan confessed judgment and Mahomed Sulliman, the present plaintiff, admitted his endorsement, and a decree was made in the plaintiff's favour against them both. On the 15th of March 1892, Mahomed Sulliman petitioned the Small Cause Court to stay execution on the ground that the decree had been obtained by fraud, and in his petition stated that he was about to take proceedings to have the decree set aside, and such further or other proceedings as he might be advised. This petition was rejected with costs on the 25th of Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Kanta Pershad Hajari Vs. Irshad Ali Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1894
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.173
1. This was a suit for arrears of rent for the years 1250, 1251 and 1252 Maghi, based on a kabuliat. The defence, so far as it is necessary to consider it for the purposes of this appeal, was that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything on account of bhet and begar, that is, presents and labour, as the items claimed under this head were in the nature of abwabs; that he was not entitled to claim anything on account of road fund; that he was not entitled to recover anything as damages, and that the defendant was entitled to abatement of rent on account of the area that was occupied by embankments or had to be left out on account of the erection of the embankments.2. The first Court allowed some of these objections and decreed the claim of the plaintiff in part. Against the first Court's decree both parties, appealed; and the learned Judge below has modified the decree of the first Court and given the plaintiff a decree in modification of the claim.3. Against that decree of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramananda Alias Haris Chandra Chowdhry Vs. Raikishori Barmani for Self ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal347
Norris and Banerjee, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is, whether, under the Hindu law of the Bengal School, a daughter is precluded from inheriting the property of her father by reason of unchastity.2. The Courts below have answered this question in the affirmative, and have accordingly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff who claims under a purchase from the daughter.3. It is contended in second appeal that this decision is wrong in law, and that unchastity is no bar to a daughter's inheriting the estate of her father. After giving our best attention to the elaborate argument of Babu Golap Chun-der Sarkar, who appeared for the appellant, we must say we do not consider this contention correct.4. In the Dayabhaga, which is the leading authority in the Bengal School, the author, in treating of the daughter's succession, observes:But if there be no maiden daughter, the succession devolves on her who has, and on her who is likely to have, male issue. That is declared by Vribanpati:...
Tag this Judgment!Narayani Dasi Vs. Administrator-general of Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal683
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff is one of the daughters of the testator Judunath Mitter, deceased, and at his death was about ten years of age and unmarried. The other daughter had been married to a man of means. There was also a minor son aged about four years. Probate of the will was obtained by the Administrator-General on 22nd February 1877, and he administered the estate until the son, Bhutnath Mitter, came of age.2. The plaintiff now asks to have the will construed by the Court and the rights of all parties under it declared. She also asks for payment of all arrears of maintenance due to her out of the estate, and for security for prompt payment in the future, and that for this purpose the necessary enquiries may be made. Lastly, she asks that the estate may be administered under orders of this Court.3. In respect of the plaintiff the will gives her an annuity of Rs. 5 per month for her natural life. About this there is no dispute, and it is also clear that the arrears due to the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Gopendro Chunder Mitter and ors. Vs. Mokaddam HosseIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal702
Beverley, J.1. This case has been referred to me under the proviso to Section 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure in consequence of a difference of opinion on a point of law between the two Judges who heard the appeal.2. The point of law is whether under Regulation VIII of 1819 the purchaser of a putni at a sale under that Regulation can avoid a mokurari which was not created by the putnidar for whose default the sale was held, but by a former putnidar.3. It seems that the putni in this case was created in 1819, the mokurari was granted by the then putnidar in 1839. In 1848 the putni was sold for arrears of rent under the Regulation, but the mokurari was not avoided at that time. In 1885 the putni was again sold under the Regulation, and in 1890 the purchaser brought the present suit to avoid the mokurari. Mr. Justice RAMPINI, relying on the strict wording of Section 11 of the Regulation, and on a decision of this Court in the case of Issen Chunder Kur v. Madhub Chunder Ghose 1 Rev. Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Lall Mullick and ors. Vs. the Administrator-general of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal732
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The question we have to consider is whether the executor appointed by a Hindu testator who made his will in 1889, and died in 1891, can, after he has obtained probate, transfer the estate, effects and interests, vested in him by virtue of such probate, to the Administrator-General under Section 31 of the Administrator-General's Act (II of 1874). Mr. Justice SALE has come to the conclusion that he cannot, as he thinks that the estate of a Hindu is not within any of the provisions of the Act, except Sections 17 and 1.8, which are expressly made applicable to such estates. The argument on both sides has dealt, not only with the Act upon which we have now to put a construction, but with the history of the office of Administrator-General, and with the conditions under which the various Acts by which it has been constituted have been passed, and in what I have to say on the subject I propose to follow the same course.2. The office was first constituted by Act VII of...
Tag this Judgment!Haliburton Vs. the Administrator-general of Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal488
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The plaintiff is one of the executors of Mary Henrietta Adams, who died in the month of April 1892; the defendants are the Administrator-General of Bengal and the surviving relatives of Henry Adams, who died in 1845, and who was the husband of Mary Henrietta Adams; and the action is brought to construe the will of Henry Adams, and to obtain possession of his estate from the Administrator-General, on the ground that in the events which have happened the whole of his estate became the absolute property of his widow, and passed by her will to the plaintiff, who is her executor and the residuary devisee under her will.2. Henry Adams made his will on the 30th of April 1844, and died on the 17th of May 1815, leaving a widow and two infant daughters, both of whom died infants and unmarried, the first on the 25th of June 1846, the second on the 10th of February 1862. The widow lived until the 14th of April 1892, but never married again.3. The will of Henry Adams provi...
Tag this Judgment!Yamin-ud-dowlah and ors. Vs. Amed Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal561
Sale, J.1. This suit, the object of which was to set aside the decree in a former suit between the same parties purporting to be a consent decree, was dismissed with costs, it being held that the compromise embodied in the decree is binding upon all the parties to the suit. An application is now made by the plaintiffs in this suit for an order to prevent the disposal, pending an appeal, of funds in the hands of the receiver appointed in the former suit. The question which 1 have toconsider is whether, under the circumstances, I have jurisdiction to make the order asked for.2. In the case of Wilson v. Church L.R. 11 Ch. D. 576, where an action had been dismissed by a Divisional Court, it was held by Sir Geouge Jessel, M.R, with the concurrence of Brett and Cotton, L.L.J., that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for an injunction to prevent funds in the hands of trustees from being parted with pending an appeal, and that such an application could only be made to t...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Chand Mahatab Bahadur Vs. Kristo Mohini Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1894
Reported in: (1894)ILR21Cal626
Trevelyan, J.1. The real question in this case is one of limitation. This question depends upon whether Article 14 * of the second schedule of the Limitation Act applies, and, if it does so apply, from what date limitation begins to run.2. The land in dispute in this suit was chrtukidari, chakran land situate within the estate of which one of the former Maharajahs of Burdwan was the proprietor. In 1882, proceedings, purporting to be under Section 48 and the following sections of Bengal Act VI of 1870, were commenced.3. The Maharajah contested the assessment, and on the 8th of July 1882 by a petition asked the Collector to settle the land with him. On the 8th of July 1832, the Collector refused this application, and ordered the land to be settled with the first defendant, who was the zemindar of adjacent lands. A transfer in the form of Schedule C of the Act was drawn up and signed by the Collector, but did not issue from his office.4. The Maharajah then preferred an appeal to the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »