Kolkata Court August 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.
Purna Chander Banerjee and ors. Vs. Laloo Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal149
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. The only two points pressed before us in these appeals are:1. That the lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding by its judgment of 8th February 1892 that the suits were not barred by Article 14 of the Limitation Act and in remanding them for trial on the merits.2. That the Courts below have not tried the question whether the plaintiff's' suits are barred by twelve years' adverse possession on the part of the defendants.2. On the first point it is to be remarked that the present appellants did not appeal, as they might have done, against the order of remand. It is contended, however, that under the provisions of Section 591 of the Code they are entitled to object to that order when appealing against the final decree. Assuming that to be so, we are not prepared to say that the order of the lower Appellate Court was wrong.3. The question turns upon certain provisions of the Estates Partition Act (Bengal Act VIII of 1876). It is contended that under Section ...
Mukti Bewa Vs. Jhotu Santra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal53
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. We agree with the view expressed by the District Magistrate, and consider that in a case like this Section 560 can only operate when there is a complete discharge or acquittal. The order directing the complainant to pay compensation must, therefore, be set aside, and the amount, if realised, refunded....
Dewan Roy Vs. Sundar Tewary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal163
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. These are appeals from decrees passed in a series of suits brought by different plaintiffs against the same defendants. The suits were all tried together in the first Court, and the appeals were tried together in the Lower Appellate Court.2. The plaintiffs claimed to recover money paid by them to get back their crops which had been distrained by the defendants for rents alleged to be due by persons other than the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed damages on account of the distraint.3. It has been contended before us that no second appeal lies, as the suits are of a nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, and the value of the subject-matter of the suits does not in any case exceed Rs. 500. There can be no doubt, we think, that so far as the suits were for the purpose of recovering the monies which the plaintiffs paid under decrees, the suits were cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.4. Article 35 (i) of the second schedule of Act IX of 1887 is i...
Rajendra Nath Haldar and ors. Vs. Nilratan Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal958
Rampini, J.1. This is a rule obtained to show cause why an order of the Munsif of Diamond Harbour, dated 1st June last, refusing an application under Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code for the cancelling of an execution sale held on the 11th June 1894 (not 1893, as erroneously stated by the Munsif) should not be set aside.2. The reason given by the Munsif for refusing to allow the petitioners the benefit of the provisions of Section 310 A is that immediately after presenting their application under Section 310A the petitioners made an application under Section 311 of the Civil Procedure Code for the setting aside of the sale on the ground of irregularities in publishing or conducting it, and hence, under the proviso to Section 310A, he considered they were not entitled to make an application under Section 310A.3. The learned pleader for the applicants has contended that the Munsif is wrong, and that there is nothing in the proviso to Section 310A to prevent sin applicant applying...
Bansi Das Alias Raghu Nath Das and anr. Vs. Jagdip NaraIn Chowdhry and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal152
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had purchased 10 bighas out of a holding of 32 bighas odd, which was the kasht land of Achhey Lal Jha and Rati Lal Jha. They claimed that the holding could not be alienated or sub-divided without their consent as landlords, and they accordingly prayed for a declaration that the defendants' purchase was illegal and invalid, and that inasmuch as the 10 bighas had been abandoned by the original tenants, khas possession of this land might be given to the plaintiffs.2. The Jha tenants were not made parties to the suit.3. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Courts on two grounds: In the first place it is found that the holding in question was transferable by law, and in the second place that, although the sub-division of the tenancy, having been made without the landlord's written consent, was not binding upon him (section 88, Bengal Tenancy Act), still such alienation of a part of the tenure did not w...
Sabhapat Singh Vs. Abdul Gaffur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal107
Treyelyan, J.1. This appeal raises a question of importance. The object of the suit was to obtain a declaration that the plaintiff was qualified to vote and to stand as a candidate at the election of Municipal Commissioners which was held in Chupra in December 1893. The plaintiff also asked for a declaration that at that election he had been duly elected.2. The Munsif before whom the case first came gave the plaintiff a declaration as to his qualification, but held that the election at which the plaintiff contended that he was elected had not been validly held. The District Judge before whom the case came on appeal and cross-appeal has dismissed the whole suit. The plaintiff has now appealed to this Court, and the question's which have been argued before us are, firstly, whether a suit of this kind will lie at all in the Civil Court, and, secondly, whether, assuming that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to deal with questions as to the qualifications of voters and candidates section an...
Beni Pershad Kuari Vs. Nand Lal Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal98
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. This case comes up to us on appeal from an order made by the District Judge of Shahabad on a remand by this Court.2. The first and only important question in the case is whether the appellant is entitled to treat the appeal as a first appeal on the question decided by the Lower Appellate Court on the evidence which has been taken subsequent to the remand. As we expressed ourselves after the argument on this portion of the case had been concluded, we are of opinion that the ordinary rules of second appeals apply to this appeal, and that it is not competent for us to interfere with the findings of the Lower Appellate Court on the facts.3. The question has arisen in this way:4. Two of the issues framed, the 1st and the 7th, were not considered by either of the lower Courts. When the case came up on appeal to this Court, the learned Judges forming the Division Bench by which the appeal was heard, after discussing the other questions in the appeal, considered t...
Jogesh Chundra Bhuttacharjee Vs. Nilratan Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal983
Banerjee, J.1. This is a reference from the Sessions Judge of Nadia, recommending that the proceedings in this case from the institution of the second complaint be set aside on the ground that the second complaint was-instituted alter the original complaint had been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and before that order of dismissal was set aside by a competent Court.2. The facts of the case are shortly these:On the 9th December 1895, the complainant, Jogesh Chundra Bhuttacharjee,. filed a petition on behalf of Maharaja Jogendra Narain Bahadur of Natore in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Kushtea, alleging that he had remitted Rs. 50 through the accused to the Maharaja's sadar kucherry in Joisto 1300, corresponding to May or June 1893, and that when an account was being taken from him he discovered that the accused had credited Rs. 36 only and misappropriated the balance Rs. 14. This petition was made over by the Joint Magistrate for disposal to an Hono...
Esoof Hasshim Dooply and anr. Vs. Fatima Bibi Alias Mah Poh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal30
Petheram, C.J., and Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Recorder of Rangoon by which he refused probate of an alleged will of a person named Mahomed Ibrahimji Dooply, whose estate is valued at more than six lakhs of rupees, and the first question we have to consider is whether the appeal lies to this Court or to Her Majesty in Council.2. The Probate and Administration Act came into operation on the 21st of January 1881. By Section 86 Every order made by a District Judge or District Delegate by virtue of the powers hereby conferred upon him shall be subject to appeal to the High Court under the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals, of that Act every order made by a District Judge under the powers of the Act is subject to appeal to the High Court, and the definition of a District Judge in Section 3 is wide enough to include the Recorder of Rangoon.3. The Civil Procedure Code came into operation on the 17th of March 1884 Section 614 of th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›