Kolkata Court January 1897 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.
Kailash Chandra Chuckerbutty and ors. Vs. Kashi Chandra Chuckerbutty a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal339
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants to recover possession of certain immoveable property, on the allegation that, the said property, along with other properties, belonged to one Radhakrishna Chuckerbutty, the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs; that upon the death of Radhakrishna's widow in whom they had vested by inheritance, the three daughters of Radhakrishna, vis, Bishakha, mother of the plaintiffs, Gaganeswari, defendant No. 2, and Subhadra, the wife of defendant No. 1 became jointly entitled to the same; that Kali Shankar Chuckerbutty, brother of Radhakrishna, having kept Bishakha out of possession, she brought a suit against him and her two sisters Subhadra and Gaganeswari to recover possession of her share in the properties left by her father; that that suit resulted in a compromise, by which Bishakha and her two sisters obtained certain properties to be held by them separately; that subsequently Bishakha died an...
Mohima Chandra Roy Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Atul Chandra Chakravarti Chow ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal540
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the two plaintiffs (appellants) who are husband and wife, to recover a certain sum of money, part of which is said to have been paid by plaintiff No. 1, who is a co---sharer with the defendants in two putnis, to save the putnis from being sold for arrears of rent, and the remainder is alleged to have been paid by plaintiff No. 2, who says that she has a subordinate miras taluk under the two putnis, granted to her by plaintiff No. 1, and that she paid the sums to prevent the sale of the putnis for arrears of rent, as the sale of the putnis for arrears of rent would have resulted in the cancellation of her miras taluk.2. The defence, so far as it is necessary to consider it for the purposes of this appeal, was to this effect, that the frame of the suit is bad for misjoinder of the two plaintiffs, whose causes of action were different; that the miras taluk claimed by plaintiff No. 2 had no real existence; that it was ...
Mohendra Lall Mitter and anr. Vs. Anundo Coomar Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal236
Maclean, C.J., O'Kinealy, J. and Trevelyan, J.1. were of opinion that the order was appealable, and they accordingly heard and dismissed the appeal. [The rest of the decision, however, is immaterial for the purposes of this report.]...
Shama Charan Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Katu Mundal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal344
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. This is a rule upon the Magistrate of Dinajpur to show cause why an order passed by the Deputy Magistrate of that district under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be set aside. The learned Judges in granting the rule observed as follows: 'The main ground for the application is that one of the parties bound down to keep the peace is not a resident of the district, and as it may possibly be necessary to look at the evidence on the record, we do not separate the case of the two applicants, but let the rule run in favour of both.' One of the two petitioners, Shama Charan Chuckerbutty, is the suddernaib, and the other, Tarak Nath Ghose, is the tehsildar of one Ghanesham Babu, proprietor of certain villages situated within the district of Dinajpur. Shama Charan Chuckerbutty resides in the district of Maldah, while Tarak Nath Ghose lives in the district of Dinajpur. The Deputy Magistrate has found on the evidence that there is a dispute existing bet...
Manick Lall Seal Vs. Gopal Lall Seal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal288
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. No cause has been shewn against this rule; but the Magistrate has submitted an explanation which we have considered. We think that under the circumstances disclosed in the affidavit, and to a great extent admitted by the Magistrate, the order of discharge ought to be set aside.2. We desire to say at the same time that the Magistrate was wrong in not allowing the petitioner to cross-examine Nayanmunjari, when she was in the box. There is nothing in Section 165 of the Evidence Act debarring or disqualifying a party to a proceeding from cross-examining any witness called By the Court. All that Section 165 says is that a party to a proceeding should not be allowed to cross-examine a witness upon an answer given by him to a question put by the Court without the permission of such Court. In this connection, we need only direct the attention of the Magistrate to the cases of Tarini Charan Chowdhry v. Saroda Svndari Dasi 3 B. L. R. A. C. 145 (158) and The Empress v. Gri...
Gour Chand Audhikari Vs. Komal Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal286
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. We think that this rule must be made absolute. In doing so, we need only refer to the case of Nilratan Sen v. Jogesh Chundra Bhuttacharjee I.L.R. 23 Cal. 983 in which a view, contrary to that which has been taken by the Magistrate, was adopted by this Court. The order reviving the complaint and the subsequent proceedings will be set aside, and the fine imposed upon the petitioner, if realized, will be refunded....
Rajlucki Debi and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal239
Maclean, C.J.1. It is unfortunate that in this case we have not had the advantage of the plaintiff being represented by Counsel, so that we might have heard from him the arguments by which he sought to maintain the judgment of the learned Judge in the Court below. The point which we have to decide is a very short one, nor does it strike me as one of any real difficulty.2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State for India and another gentleman, who is the purchaser under a certificate of sale following a decree under which certain property was put up for sale, and sold to meet the claim of the Government in respect of certain moneys due from the plaintiff, to set aside that sale.3. An objection is taken by the Secretary of State in Council that he has not been served with the necessary notice under Section 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure to which he submits he is entitled before an action can be instituted. The question to my mind depends upon what is ...
Kissory Mohun Roy Vs. Kali Churn Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal190
Sale, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff on his mortgages, dated respectively the 19th of August 1888 and the 14th of December 1888. The properties, the subject of suit, are all in Calcutta within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. Those comprised in the first mortgage were also comprised in the second mortgage with other properties. These other properties were subsequently mortgaged to the defendant Pran Gobindo Shaw with further properties out of Calcutta.2. By the decree it was referred to the Registrar to take an account in respect of each of the three mortgages, and failing redemption it was ordered that the properties comprised in the first and second mortgages should be sold, and the proceeds mar(sic)halled and applied so that the third mortgagee should have the full benefit of any surplus of the sale-proceeds of such of the properties comprised in his mortgage as were also comprised in the second mortgage, such properties being all in Calcutta. [192] T...
Hem Chunder Lahiri Vs. Kunjo Behari Gossami and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal340
Banerjee and Wilkins, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the respondent, Hem Chunder Lahiri, for probate of the will of the late Jibun Kristo Gossami, uncle of the petitioner's wife's father, by which the petitioner and his wife have been appointed executors.2. The will propounded by the petitioner is dated the 20th September 1895, that is, about six months before the death of the testator. The application for probate was opposed by the appellants, Kunjo Behari and Debendernath Gossami, two of the nephews of the testator, mainly on the grounds that the testator-was not of sound disposing mind at the time the will propounded is alleged to have been executed, and that he was completely under the influence of the petitioner and his wife; and that the execution of the will should be held to have been brought about by coercion and undue influence.3. The case was transferred by the District Judge, in whose Court it had been instituted, to the Court of the Subordinate Judge und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›