Kolkata Court January 1896 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.
Hurri Krishna Panda Vs. Balabhadra Panda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal431
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the petitioner for a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act (VII of 1889). The application was made on behalf of one Hurri Krishna Panda through his next friend Gouri Debi, the allegation being that Hurri Krishna is the adopted son of the late Kalicharan Panda in respect of whose estate the certificate is applied for. The application was opposed by one Balabhadra Panda, who denied the existence of any authority to adopt, and also the fact of the adoption itself, and who claimed to be a reversionary heir to the estate of Kalicharan Panda after the death of Gouri Debi. The objector had, however, no objection to the certificate being granted to Gouri Debi. Upon these allegations the learned Judge on the 13th of March 1895 made the following order: 'Objection filed, but it is only against the petitioner's adoption alleged by the deceased's widow who applies as guardian. I cannot go into disputes of that kind. ...
Balaram Bhramaratar Ray Vs. Sham Sunder Narendra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal526
Banerjee, J.1. This rule arises out of certain cases under the former Land Acquisition Act (X of 1870). The cases were referred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, who had been empowered to perform the functions of a Judge under that Act; and whilst they were pending before him, Act X of 1870 was repealed by Act I of 1894. The Subordinate Judge then disposed of the cases, apportioning in a certain way the compensation awarded. Dissatisfied with his decision, the petitioner before us preferred appeals to the District Judge, and at the hearing of the appeals the learned District Judge held that they lay, not to his Court, but to the High Court, under Section 54 of Act I of 1894. Upon that the petitioner before us made two applications to this Court; in one of which he contended that the District; Judge was wrong in dismissing the appeals, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, and that the appeals properly lay to his Court; and in the other he contended that, if the District Judge was...
Guzuffer HassaIn and ors. Vs. E. Dalglish and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal427
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. In this case we think that the learned Subordinate Judge has taken an erroneous view of the law. The question was whether according to custom or usage those tenures were transferable. Section 183 of the Bengal Tenancy Act runs thus : Nothing in this Act shall affect any custom or usage or customary right not inconsistent with or not expressly or by necessary implication modified or abolished by its provisions.' We find in Section 178 of the same Act, Sub-section 3, Clause (d) that 'nothing in any contract made between a landlord and a tenant, after the passing of this Act, shall take away the right of a raiyat to transfer or bequeath his holding in accordance with local usage.' That shows that 'local usage' will give a right to a raiyat to transfer his. tenure, even if Section 183 did not expressly confer that right upon him. The learned Subordinate Judge says in his judgment: 'Then, one most important fact is that the witnesses do not seem to say that the...
Rudra NaraIn Guria Vs. Pachu Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal437
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. The only question that arises in this case is whether the application of the decree-holder, the appellant before us, for execution of his decree is barred by limitation.2. The Courts below have held that the application is barred, and the Lower Appellate Court bases its judgment chiefly upon the case of Raghunandun Pershad v. Bhugoo Lal I.L.R. 17 Cal. 268.3. Now the ground upon which the decree-holder claims exemption from the operation of the law of limitation is this, namely, that the order of the Court allowing the claim of certain parties in respect of the properties which he now asks the Court to attach and sell in execution of his decree, operated as a (sic) bar to the execution proceeding to attachment and sale of those (sic); that it was not until after the removal of that bar by the decision civil suit which he was obliged to institute that he was placed in a (sic)to proceed with the execution; and that his present application, which was made subsequ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›