Kolkata Court July 1895 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Premlall Mullick, an Infant, by His Next Friend Trigoona Sundery Dasse ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal960
Sale, J.1. This is a suit which was instituted for the administration of the estate of one Nundo Lall Mulliek. The circumstances under which administration was sought were as follows:Nundo Lall Mullick died on the 22nd of February 1891, leaving a very considerable estate. By his will dated 5th August 1889 he appointed one Sumbhoonath Boy and one Dwarkanath Bhunjo as his executors, and he created various trusts in favour of the plaintiff, who was his adopted son, and in favour of his widow Sreemutty Trigoona Sundery Dassee, and he also created various religious trusts.2. It is not necessary for my present purpose that I should refer more particularly to these various trusts. On the 17th March 1891 the executors appointed by the will took out probate and entered into immediate possession of the estate and administered it, and they continued in possession of the estate till the 14th August 1893, when, by a deed purporting to be made under Section 31 of the Administrator-General's Act, the...
Mahomed Ershad Ali Khan Choudhry Vs. Saroda Prosad Shaha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal37
Macpherson and Bannerjee, JJ.1. We reject this application. The principal ground urged is that the Magistrate, who made the order for the payment of costs under Section 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not at the time assess the amount of costs, and that the District Magistrate, on the transfer of the first mentioned officer, had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. In support of this, the case of Bhojal Sonar v. Nirban Singh I.L.R. 21 Cal. 609 has been cited. That case no doubt is an authority for the contention, but it has been reconsidered in the case of (Gridhar Chatterjee v. Ebadullah Naskar I.L.R. 22 Cal. 384, and one of the learned Judges who disposed of the former case was one of the learned Judges who decided the latter case. Although he distinguished the first mentioned case, the effect of the decision was that, when there was an order to pay costs under Section 148 by the Magistrate deciding the case, another Magistrate had jurisdiction to assess the amount of t...
Queen-empress Vs. Sitanath Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal1006
Macpherson, J.1. We are unable to accept the case for the prosecution, in so far as it is attempted to be made out that the complainant was raped by Sitanath or by anybody else, or that she was abducted in order to compel her to have illicit intercourse with him, or any one against her will. The woman's own conduct and the conduct of Sitanath and of others, who were accused with him, is inconsistent with any such treatment, or with any such intention on their part. If the woman had been raped or subjected to great personal violence or indignity, it is impossible to suppose that she would not have complained to one or other of the persons whom she must have met when she was brought within the precincts of the Alipur Court with a view to the settlement of the criminal case which she had brought before she was forcibly carried off. But although the complainant's statement is doubtless greatly exaggerated as to the treatment which she had received, we have no doubt that the fact of the abd...
Nittomoye Dassee and anr. Vs. Soobul Chunder Law and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal117
Sale, J.1. In this application the question is whether the defendants should be ordered to give further and better answers to certain interrogatories. These interrogatories fall under two classes, and different considerations apply to them. In the first place the first, second and third interrogatories, and a portion of the sixth interrogatory, refer to a certain issue which the plaintiff alleges arises in this suit.2. About the suit it is only necessary to say that the plaintiff claims certain rights under the will of her late husband Rakhaldoss Law, and a question is raised as to what is meant by the term 'family' as used in the will.3. It has been held by this Court that the term 'family' includes all persons residing in the house of the testator at the time of his death, whether as dependent members of his family or not. The interrogatories to which I have specifically referred do not, any of them, ask the defendants to state who the persons were, who were living in the household o...
Matangini Dassee Vs. Chooneymoney Dassee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal903
Hill, J.1. In my opinion the preliminary objection to the frame of the suit taken by Mr. Caspersz on behalf of the defendant, Hurro Lall Dutt, fails. The case of Ashutosh Bannerjee v. Lukhimoni Debya I.L.R. 19 Cal. 139 is to my mind clearly distinguishable from the present. There what was decided was that future maintenance awarded by a decree when falling due can be recovered in execution of that decree without further suit. The question referred to the Full Bench, and decided, had no bearing on the proper method of enforcing a decree charging property to secure future maintenance. Here the decree, which is the ultimate foundation of the suit, after declaring the amount payable to the plaintiff in respect of future maintenance, and that it should be a charge upon the house in Armenian Street, a specific item, that is, of the general estate, goes on to direct that for the purpose of securing the payment of the future maintenance a deed should be executed in favour of the plaintiff char...
Romanath Bural Vs. Guggodonandan Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal889
Hill, J.1. If the case of Nusur Mahomed v. Kazbai is to be regarded as laying down the proposition that a Court which transmits a summons under the provisions of Section 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure to another Court for service on the defendant is bound by a return made by the latter Court to the effect that the summons has been duly served, I should feel some difficulty in following it. It was perhaps, however, not intended to lay down such a rule without qualification. Section 85 does not, so far as I can perceive, require the Court which served the summons to make a return to the Court from which it issued touching the sufficiency of the service. Sections 87, 88 and 90 seem to afford the only instances in which a return of that nature is prescribed. The declaration provided for by Section 82 relates only to a limited class of cases, those namely in which the provisions of Section 80 have come into play, and cannot, as it appears to me, have been intended, when made by a Court t...
Baroda Kanta Chattapadhya Vs. Jatindra NaraIn Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal974
Norris and Gordon, JJ.1. The property which is the subject-matter of this suit formed part of the estate of Kirthi Chandra Rai which descended in the usual course to his grandsons Pran Krishna and Dhan Krishna.2. The following genealogical table explains the descent: Kirthi Chandra Roy. | -------------------------------------------------------- | | Lakhy Narain Roy (had two wives). Ganga Narain Roy. | ------------------------ ------------------- | | | | Rajessary. Umamoyi. Mohanand. Bhairab. | | | Joy Krishna. | | | ----------------------------------- | | | | | | | | Pran Krishna. Dhan Krishna. Saraswati. Brajangana.| Daughter, | Chumpakmoni. --------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | Son, Girish Rakshamoni. Madhumati. Rameswari. Krishna Dhone. Nobin Krishna. Chunder. | | | Baroda Kant, Widow, Widow, Plaintiff. Krishna Manikmoni. Sundari.3. On the death of Pran Krishna and Dhan Krishna their mother Umamoyi succeeded, and on her death the property devolved on Kri...
Gobind Proshad Tewary and ors. Vs. Baroda Churn Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal984
Pigot, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the decree of the Lower Appellate Court must be set aside by reason of the review having been allowed under the circumstances under which it was granted; it was not granted on any of the grounds stated in Section 629, and the question which was argued before us is, whether it is competent in final appeal to challenge the propriety of an order granting a review on grounds other than those stated in Section 629.2. Upon this question the case of Har Nandan Sahai v. Behari Sing (ante, p. 3) was cited before us, and we have come to the conclusion that that case properly interpreted must be held to decide that in general final appeal an order for review cannot be challenged save upon the grounds stated in Section 629, and we shall follow that casein deciding the question before us against the appellant and in support of the decision of the Lower Appellate Court.3. In the case of Har Nandan Sahai v. Behari Sing (ante, p. 3), the Bombay d...
Tiluck Singh Vs. ParsoteIn Proshad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1895
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal924
Prinsep and Ghose, JJ.1. This is a matter relating to the execution of a decree on a mortgage passed under the Transfer of Property Act. It seems that an application for execution of that decree was made and abandoned, and again renewed, without the plaintiff having obtained an order under Section 89 for the sale of the mortgaged properties. On the second application to execute, the mortgagor, judgment-debtor, objected that the decree could not be executed without such an order, and he succeeded in getting the application to execute dismissed on this ground. On this, the mortgagee has applied to have his decree made absolute by an order for sale of the mortgaged properties. The objection was renewed by the mortgagor on the ground that more than three years have passed since the original decree, and that, therefore, the application now made was barred by Article 178, Schedule II of the Limitation Act of 1877. Both the Courts have overruled this objection and have concurrently given the ...
Kalli Prosanno Chuckerbutty Vs. Chundra Sakai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1895
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal254
Gordon, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to eject the defendants from three plots of land which he purchased at an auction sale for arrears of rent due in respect thereof. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title and the judgment-debtor's right to possession over the disputed land,2. The first Court gave effect to the defence and dismissed the suit.3. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge has reversed the decree of the Munsif.4. On second appeal, it is contended before us that the plaintiff is not entitled to eject the defendants, because he purchased his holding under Section 159 of the Tenancy Act subject to an incumbrance as denned in Section 161 of that Act; and that he could annul that incumbrance only in the manner provided in Section 167.5. We think that this contention must prevail.6. The Subordinate Judge has found that there was an exchange of land, and that the defendants have held this land under that exchange for more than thirty years; but he was of opinion that the exc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »