Kolkata Court July 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.
Kali Krishna Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Annoda Prosad Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal95
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Bankura revoking probate of the will of one Durga Das Chatterjee. The will bears date the 6th April 1885, and the testator died in March 1890. Thereafter, the testator's eldest son, Annoda Prosad Chatterjee, the appellant before us, obtained probate as executor of that will on the 8th December 1890. Subsequently, Kali Krishna Chatterjee, the grandson of the testator (son of another son, Baroda), a minor, through his guardian applied in the year 1891 for revocation of the probate, and his application was dismissed on the 25th January 1892. Then a suit was brought in 1892 in the Subordinate Judge's Court by Thakomoni Debi, the widow of the testator, for the purpose of obtaining revocation of the said probate and removing the present appellant from his post as executor and that suit also was dismissed on the 24th June 1893. Now, Kali Krishna Chatterjee having come of age, has tiled the present petition for ...
Bheka Singh Vs. Nakchhed Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal41
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decision on remand.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, claiming to be an occupancy-raiyat, against the Secretary of State, who was his landlord, and also against a person who had been settled on the land by one of the officers of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State put in an answer disclaiming any preference for the plaintiff or the defendant as his tenant.3. The case came before the Munsif who found that the plaintiff had an occupancy-right, but he dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 3, Schedule III, Part I of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff appealed, not making the Secretary of State a party to the appeal; as far as the decision against the Secretary of State as to the suit being barred by limitation is concerned, it was final, not having been excepted to by the appellant. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Secretary of State...
G. W. A. Lloyd Vs. A. B. L. Webb and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal44
Sale, J.1. This a suit for the construction of the will and for the administration of the estate of William Lloyd, who died in the Darjeeling district on the 15th of January 1896, leaving the plaintiff, his son, an only child, and a widow who resides in England. The will is dated the 16th of September 1890, and the defendants, who are appointed the trustees for carrying out the wishes of the testator expressed in the will, obtained probate as executors according to the tenor, on the 10th of February 1896. It appears that the testator had for many years carried on, and was carrying on at the date of his death, a banking business in Darjeeling, of which the defendant Alexander Baness Lumley Webb was the manager, and that the business is still being carried on by the defendants as the trustees appointed by the will. It also appears that at the date of the will the plaintiff had attained full age but had not adopted a profession, though it is said that before the death of his father he suc...
Raghubir Ojha and ors. Vs. Soman Gope
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal160
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. This suit was brought to evict a tenant on the ground of his having used the land in a manner which rendered it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy. The land was admittedly let for agricultural purposes, but the tenant turned it into an orchard. The lower Appellate Court lias held that the land has been rendered unfit for the purposes of the tenancy, and even if we were inclined to do so, we are unable to interfere with this finding in second appeal.2. The only question of law in the appeal is whether the suit was hatred by limitation. The Munsif held that it was barred by article 32 of the 2nd schedule of the limitation Act. The Subordinate Judge has held that it was not barred, and that article 120 applied.3. It is argued before us that article 32 applies, and we think that it does apply. There can be no doubt but that this case is within the letter of that article, and there is nothing in the article to limit it to a suit for compensation. The article...
Banimadhub Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Mahanund Chuckerbutty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal27
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. We think that the Court below in this case has arrived at a proper conclusion.2. The whole question discussed before us by the learned vakil for the appellants is as to the effect of the sale held by the Collector in execution of a decree under Act X of 1859 for cesses against certain of the owners of the tenure in respect of which the cesses were due, that is to say, whether it was a sale of the tenure itself, or simply the right, title and interest of the persons against whom the said decree had been obtained.3. The contention of the appellant depends entirely upon the construction to be put upon Section 47 of Bengal Act IX of 1880. That section runs thus: Every holder of an estate or tenure to whom any sum may be payable under the provisions of this Act may recover the same with interest at the rate of twelve and half per centum per annum in the same manner and under the same penalties as if the same were arrears of rent due to him.'4. It has been contended t...
Satis Chandra ChaturdhurIn Vs. Alim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal37
Macpherson and Hill, JJ.1. This is a suit for arrears of rent for the years 1296 to 1299 according to certain specified instalments, and interest at the rate of 1 anna per rupee per mensem. The interest claimed is much in excess of the principal. It seems that the holding for which the rent is claimed formerly belonged to one Anu Sarkar, who held it under a registered kabuliyat for a term of 7 years, extending from 1285 to 1291. After the lease expired he held over without any further agreement. In February 1889 (Phalgun 1296) the plaintiff' obtained a decree for arrears of rent against Anu Sarkar, and in execution of the decree the holding was sold and purchased by the defendant. The plaintiff in the present suit claimed interest at the rate and according to the instalments specified in the kabuliyat. The defendant said the rent was payable in the instalments specified in Section 53 of the Tenancy Act, and that the plaintiff could not recover a higher rate of interest than was allowed...
A. Yule and Co. Vs. Mahomed HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal129
Ameer Ali, J.1. The question involved in this rule is of some importance. The parties showing cause brought a suit in the Small Cause Court for damages alleged to have accrued to them in consequence of the refusal of the defendants in that suit, the now applicants, to take delivery of certain goods they had agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs. On such refusal the plaintiff's re-sold the goods, and then sued for the difference between the contract price and the price obtained at the re-sale. It appears that at the re-sale the plaintiffs themselves bought in the goods. The objections raised by the defendants at the hearing of the suit were overruled by the learned judge of the Small Cause Court, who held that there was no objection to the plaintiffs having themselves purchased the goods on there-sale, and that they were entitled to recover the amount claimed.2. The judgment, however, was made contingent on the opinion of the High Court. When the reference to the High Court came on for...
Sheo Shankar Gir Vs. Ram Shewak Chowdhri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal77
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. This suit was brought by the present mohunt of the Kaplessar Asthan in the Nepal Terai for the purpose of obtaining possession of mouzah Mahtour, which is situate in the district of Tirhoot. The plaint asks.1. That it may be declared that Mahtour forms a, deotar estate belonging to the Kaplessar Asthan.2. That it may be declared that the deed of sale, dated the 5th of March 1881, was altogether invalid and collusive and ineffectual, and that under it the defendants have acquired no right in that estate.3. That the Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect to the entire mouzah Mahtour. This last prayer we read as a prayer for possession.2. The defendants plead that the suit is barred by limitation, and that they have acquired a right by adverse possession. They also plead that mouzah Mahtour is not deotar property, and deny all the allegations contained in the plaint. Lastly, they plead that the deed of sale under which the...
Dhoroney Dhur Ghose Vs. Radha Gobind Kur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal117
Ameer Ali, J.1. The suit in which this application is made has been brought by the plaintiff' to recover Rs. 5,000 for damages alleged to have been caused to his house 110-2, Shambazar Street, in Calcutta, by the construction by the defendant of his premises now numbered 110-4.2. The plaintiff states in substance that owing to the manner in which the defendant's house has been built the foundations of his house have sunk, and one at least of the arches has given way, and various cracks have appeared in his premises, for the repairs of which he has been put to considerable expanse, and he estimates his damages at Rs. 5,000. The defendant's case, as stated in his written statement, is that the plaintiff erected his house on a defective foundation, and that the cracks which have appeared; are primarily due to that circumstance and also to defective workmanship. He denies in toto that any damage has been caused to the plaintiff's premises in consequence of or as resulting from the house wh...
Rahaman Buksh and ors. Vs. Sarkum Abu Torab Abdul Waheb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal83
Macpherson and Hill, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in this suit pray for a decree declaring them to be the khadims of the durga of Hazrat Shah Zilal, and declaring them also as khadims to be entitled to perform the duties attached to that office for twenty one days in each month, and during the same periods to receive the offerings (nazar-niaz) made by worshippers at the durga. They also ask for an injunction restraining the principal defendants from interfering with them in the enjoyment of these offerings as well as in the performance of their khadimi duties.2. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendants now in appeal to this Court question the correctness of these decrees on the grounds that the suit is barred by the operation of the rule of res judicata; that it is barred by limitation; and that the rights which form the subject-matter of the suit are not transferable either by sale or by inheritance, more particularly through a female.3. The plaintiffs' case is that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »