Kolkata Court May 1896 Judgments

Thomas Vs. Thomas

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal913

Ameer Ali, J.1. The respondent in this case applies for alimony pendente lite for the time previous to the decree nisi. She states in her affidavit that from August 1894 the petitioner has not given her any maintenance, and that she has spent a considerable amount for the maintenance of herself and her children who were living with her. The facts stated in her affidavit have in various respects been contradicted by the petitioner, but when the application was made, I intimated that, if I decided the question of jurisdiction in favour of the respondent, I would refer the questions of fact to the Registrar; and counsel on both sides acquiesced in that course.2. Mr. Avetoom, for the petitioner, objected that I had no jurisdiction to make the order relating to alimony prior to the decree nisi, on the ground that the action had ended. N-o case has been cited to show that I have no jurisdiction. I am clearly of opinion that I have jurisdiction. The wife could have applied for alimony after s...

Aghore Nath Chuckerbutty and anr. Vs. Ram Churn Chuckerbutty and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal805

Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. The facts of this case are shortly these:The plaintiffs, Aghore Nath Chuckerbutty and Trailakhya Nath Chuckerbutty, were judgment-debtors in a certain decree for rent obtained by the Administrator-General of Bengal. In due course, the decree-holder applied for the execution of his decree, and the property which forms the subject-matter of this suit was advertised for sale. The judgment-debtors, the plaintiffs, appointed the defendant No. 1, Ram Churn Chuckerbutty, as their pleader to look after the execution case on their behalf. On the 21st August 1893, the property in question was put up for sale. Certain bids were then offered on behalf of the decree-holder's pleader. The sale, however, was not concluded on that day. It was resumed on the next day, namely, the 22nd August; and on that day, it would appear upon the bid papers, that the bids were confined to two individuals, the decree-holder's pleader's clerk and the clerk of Earn Churn Chuckerbutty, the defen...

Beni Madhub Mohapatra Vs. Sourendra Mohun Tagore and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal795

Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This was a suit to enforce a mortgage security bearing date the 24th Bysack 1293 corresponding with 6th May 1886.2. There were several defendants in the Court below, but most of them did not appear to defend the suit. It is only necessary to refer to the defendant No 1, who is the mortgagor, and to the defendant No. 2, who has, since the plaintiff's mortgage, purchased the equity of redemption of the mortgagor at a sale in execution of certain decree, and has also obtained an assignment of five different mortgages of dates anterior to the plaintiff's mortgage. And, having apparently kept alive these earlier mortgages, he (the defendant No. 2) contended in the Court below that the plaintiff was not entitled to sell the mortgaged property without redeeming the earlier mortgages now in his hands. It appears that since the assignment to him of those mortgages, the defendant No. 2 has, upon two of them, obtained decrees against various parties, amongst whom the plain...

Abdul Gafur and ors. Vs. Queen-empress

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal896

O'Kinealy and Banerjee, JJ.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code should not he set aside and a retrial ordered.2. The facts of the case are shortly these : The petitioners before us were convicted by the Sub-Deputy Magistrate of an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal the learned District Magistrate altered the conviction into one under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, and reduced the sentence to one of fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment in the case of each of the petitioners. Against this conviction and sentence the petitioners moved this Court, asking us to interfere, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that as the warrant of arrest, in the execution of which the constable is said to have been obstructed, wa...

In Re: Inventions and Designs Act, 1888; in Re: an Alleged Invention o ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal702

Sale, J.1. On the 9th September 1895 the petitioner, John Carapiet Galstaun, applied for and obtained under Section 30 of the Inventions and Designs Act, 1888, a rule calling upon Ernest Angelo Short to show cause why this Court should not declare that an exclusive privilege under the Inventions and Designs Act, 1888, in respect of a certain alleged invention set forth in the specification of the said Ernest Angelo Short, filed by him on the 27th March 1895, has not been acquired by the said Ernest Angelo Short under the said Act by reason of the following objections amongst others:(1) That the said invention was not at the date of the delivery of the application for leave to file the specification a new invention within the meaning of Part I of the said Act.(2) That the applicant, the said Ernest Angelo Short, was not the inventor thereof.2. Several affidavits were filed in support of the application for the rule, and cause has now been shown on the part of Mr. Ernest Angelo Short, wh...

In Re: Nundo Lall Mullick

Court: Kolkata

Sale, J.1. This is an application by the Administrator-General as the Administrator of the estate of Nundo Lall Mullick, deceased, for permission, under suction 90 of the Probata and Administration Act, to sell property belonging to the estate for the purpose of paying off certain pressing claims against the estate.2. The Administrator-General is the Administrator of the estate by virtue, of a deed of transfer executed by the executors of the Will of the deceased under the provisions of Section 31 of the Administrator-General's Act.3. The question raised is whether the Administrator-General, for the purposes of Section 90 of the Probate and Administration Act, is an executor or an administrator in respect of the properties vested in him by the deed of transfer. The deed of transfer is dated the 14th August 1893, and Section 31 of the Administrator-General's Act provides that on the transfer being made by a private executor, 'the Administrator-General for the time being shall have the r...

Rampertab Mull and anr. Vs. Jakeeram Agurwallah and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal991

Ameer Ali, J.1. These are four actions for malicious prosecution in which the plaintiffs are the same, but the defendants in each case are different. These cases came on for hearing on the 4th February 1896.2. Counsel for the plaintiff applied for an adjournment of all the cases on the ground that in suit No. 217 one of the defendants, Jakeeram, had died some months ago, and the plaintiff had not been able to discover his representatives. He also stated that the plaintiff had come to know, within the last two or three days, that the defendant Issur Chunder Ghose in suit No. 218 had died, and the plaintiff had not been able to make any enquiries about his representatives.3. Another ground was that the plaintiff's witnesses were residing at a distance from Calcutta, and it would take some time to issue and serve the subpoenas on them.4. As regards the other actions the ground urged for postponement was that they arose out of the same criminal proceedings as the suits Nos. 217 and 218, an...

Brojonath Mittra Vs. Gopi Shakrani

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal835

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The answer to this question will be that a suit by the proprietor of bustee land for the recovery of Municipal taxes from the owner of a hut in the bustee is cognizable by the Provincial Small Cause Court. The jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court is fixed by the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887), and this gives Small Cause Courts jurisdiction in all suits, except such as are mentioned in the second schedule of that Act. The two articles of that schedule, which are relied upon here, are Articles 8 and 13, Article 8 provides that suits for the recovery of rent are not cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, and Article 13 provides that suits for the recovery of cesses and other dues which are payable to a person by reason of his interest in immoveable property on account of malikana, hakk and fees of that kind, are not cognizable by Courts of Small Causes.2. As to Article 13 we think it enough to say that no possible argument can be founded upon it. ...

Mullick Kefait HosseIn and ors. Vs. Sheo Pershad Singh and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal821

Beverley and Jenkins, JJ.1. The facts of this case, so far as they are necessary for the decision of the present appeal, may be briefly stated as follows:Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the reversioners to the estate of one Kunj Behari Lal, whose widow Chet Koer died on 22nd June 1878. Plaintiff No. 1 claims a fourth of the property in suit under an arrangement with the predecessor of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3. In this suit they join in seeking to set aside an alienation by the widow of a moiety of Kunj Behari Lal's estate. The suit was instituted on 23rd February 1891 (the 22nd February being a Sunday). The period within which such a suit must be brought being admittedly twelve years from the death of the widow, the suit is clearly barred, unless the plaintiffs are allowed a deduction of the time during which they were unsuccessfully prosecuting another suit under the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.2. It appears that on 25th April 1890 the plaintiff No. 1 alone instituted a suit ...

Pramatha Nath Sandal and ors. Vs. Dwarka Nath Dey

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal851

W. Combe Petheram, C.J.1. This was a rule granted by this Court, under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, to revise an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Krishnaghur by which he dismissed the petitioner's suit with-costs.2. The cause of action and the defence were stated to be money due on a hatchitta, dated 3rd Aghran 1299, for Rs. 200, and interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 3 per mensem. Amount Rs. 416.3. Defence.-Defendant admits that he borrowed Rs. 200 from Modhusudan Sanyal, and executed the hatchitta sued upon, but pleads payment of the loan with interest in Magh 1299.4. The questions fixed for trial were-(1) Is the hatchitia sued upon admissible in evidence?(2) Is the suit maintainable in case the first issue is decided against the plaintiff?(3) Is the defendant's plea of payment true?5. When the document was produced, it appeared that it bore an anna receipt stamp only, and as the Judge came to the conclusion that it was a promissory note and should have be...