Kolkata Court February 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.
DulhIn Gulab Koer Vs. Saturjit Pertap Bahadoor Sahi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal469
Beverley and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit which, was brought against him in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mozufferpur. The defendant who resides in the district of Gorakhpur, defended the suit by his am-mukhtar, one Hurdeo Narain, who appears to have verified and filed the written statement. After ponding for over a year in the Subordinate Judge's Court, the ease was, at the request of both parties, referred to arbitration, and on the 12th March 1894 the arbitrators submitted their award, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 3,217 odd with proportionate costs from the defendant. On the 19th March the defendant, through the same am-mukhtar, filed an objection, in which he prayed that the award might be set aside on the ground (amongst others) that the arbitrators had allowed certain items which were barred by limitation, and when the matter came on to be argued a further objection was raised orally to the effect that Hur...
Peary Lall Sanyal and ors. Vs. Bhoba Tarini Debya and Ars.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal646
Banerjee and Bampini, JJ.1. This was a suit for the construction of the will of one Chandra Nath Maitra, for a declaration that since the death of Peyari Sundari, his elder widow, a twelve annas share of the estate left by him has vested by inheritance in the plaintiff, his sister's son, for a further declaration that defendant No. 1, Bhoba Tarini, the younger widow of the testator, has forfeited all her rights in the estate of her husband, that the putni granted by her in favour of defendant No. 2, Kailash Chandra Shah, is inoperative as against the plaintiff, and that defendant No. 1 is in any case incompetent to manage the estate, and for recovery of possession of certain properties and for confirmation of plaintiff's possession in certain others. The main allegations of fact upon which the suit was based are, that on the death of Chandra Nath Maitra, his widow Peyari Sundari, and Modhu Sudan Chakravarti, took out probate of his will and managed his estate; that on the death of Modh...
Queen-empress Vs. Kayemullah Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal429
Rampini and Stevens, JJ.1. This is a reference by the Officiating Sessions Judge of Rungpur inviting us to quash the commitment of Kayemullah Mandal and others committed to his Court by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Gaibanda for trial of an offence under Section 147 of the Penal Code.2. The Sessions Judge considers that the commitment of the accused in this case is illegal, inasmuch as the offence with which the accused are charged is one 'exclusively triable by Magistrates.' But this is not the case. The Sessions Judge has looked only at the schedule appended to the Criminal Procedure Code, but this schedule must be read along with the Code itself. Now one of the sections of the Code is Section 28, under which the Court of Sessions has 'subject to the other provisions of the Code' power to try an accused person for any offence. Then under Section 207 a Magistrate, who is competent to commit to the Court of Sessions, can commit to that Court both cases triable exclusively by that Court...
Kailash Chandra Pal and anr. Vs. Kunja Behari Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal391
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. We think that this rule should be made absolute, upon the first ground mentioned in the order of this Court, dated the 27th July last.2. It is quite clear that, so far as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Narain-gunge is concerned, he thought that no proceedings should be taken under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the order that he made on the 19th October 1894 was an order under Section 144 of the Code, prohibiting Isaff from interfering with the land which is the subject-matter of the dispute between the parties; and we further find that on the 4th June 1895 he made another order under the same Section (144), similarly prohibiting Kunja Behari, the opposite party before us, from interfering with the land in question. The Magistrate of the district, however, on the 23rd July 1895, was of opinion that it was the duty of the Sub-Divisional Officer to institute proceedings under Section 145, and he accordingly modified the said order of the 4th ...
Dengu Kazi. Vs. NobIn Kissori Chowdhrani, Widow of the Late Issur Chun ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal462
Maclean, C.J.1. In this case I think that a second appeal lies to this Court under Section 108 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. I arrive at that conclusion upon the grounds stated by Mr. Justice Macpherson and Mr. Justice Hill in the reference. I do not propose to go over those grounds, but confine myself to saying that for the reasons they have given I arrive at the conclusion that this appeal lies.O'Kinealy, J.2. I concur in the judgment which has just been delivered. I think looking at the Act and the Rules made by the Bengal Government under the Act that an appeal docs lieMacpherson, J.3. I also concur.Trevelyan, J.4. I concur. I should like to add a few words to the judgments which have been pronounced, as one of the decisions which have given rise to this reference is a decision to which I was a party. In one case at least, if not in more, I decided that no appeal would lie. Having had the advantage of a further consideration, notably having had the advantage of seeing, the order of re...
Baiju Lal Parbatia and ors. Vs. Bulak Lal Pathuk
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal385
Beverley, J.1. This was a suit brought by seven Gyawals to restrain the defendant from taking certain action in respect of a masonry platform round a sacred tree in the town of Gya, and the plaintiffs came into Court upon the allegation that they formed a panch or committee which represented the entire Gyawal community, and further that even if that should not be found to be the case, they had the right individually to restrain the defendant from the action complained of. Upon this statement of the case the Munsif says: 'Plaintiffs accordingly on behalf of themselves and as panch of the Gyawals bring this suit for the removal of the encroachments.' .On the evidence the Munsif found that the plaintiffs did not constitute the panch which they allege in their plaint, and accordingly he held that they did not in that character represent the entire Gyawal community, and that they could not therefore sue on their behalf except by leave of the Court as provided by Section 90 of the Code of Ci...
Dhan Kunwar and ors. Vs. Latifunnessa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal382
Beverley, J.1. This is a suit upon a mortgage bond, and the only question raised in this appeal is whether or not the suit was instituted within twelve years from the date on which the money sued for became due.2. The bond's fated the 8th Assar 1283 Fusli, corresponding with the 14th June 1876, and the suit was instituted on the 12th June 1894. The question turns upon the construction of the document as to what was the date upon which the money became payable. The stipulation in the bond was to repay the money 'in the month of Jeyth 1289 Fusli, being a period of six year.' The period of six years from the date of execution of the bond would carry us to the 14th June 1882, and the plaintiff contends that that should be regarded as the due date irrespective of all mention of the month of Jeyth 1289 Fusli. The defendant on the other hand pleads that the debtor bound himself to repay the money on or before the 29th Jeyth 1289 Fusli (there being only twenty-nine days in the month of Jeyth i...
Srinath Roy and ors. Vs. Ainaddi Haider
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal395
Ghose and Gordon, JJ.1. After hearing both sides in this matter, we think that the rule should be made absolute upon both the grounds on which if, was granted.2. The complaint was one for illegal obstruction of what the complainant described to be at public thoroughfare. The Magistrate, before whom the said complaint was instituted, after certain preliminary enquiries which he had made, was of opinion that the alleged way was not a public thoroughfare; and he accordingly refused to take action under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant then went up to the Sessions Judge; and that Officer was of opinion that the Magistrate was bound to have proceeded with the case; and he directed that a further enquiry be made under Section 133, and the following sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate acted upon this order, as he was bound to do, made a conditional order under Section 133, and called upon the petitioners before us to show cause why the obst...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›