Kolkata Court July 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.
Brojo Nath Saikia and ors. Vs. Rami Deka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal97
Macpherson and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court in this case is: 'Appeal rejected under Section 551 of the Code of Civil Procedure.'2. It is contended that this is not a judgment in conformity with law, and that there is an error of procedure, which brings the case under Section 534.3. The dismissal of an appeal under Section 551 by a Court, whose decision may be the subject of an appeal, does not, we think, relieve the Court from the necessity of writing a judgment which, according to the provisions of Section 574, should show the points raised, the decision upon those points, and the reasons for deciding them. There was an appeal before the Court, and the judgment disposing of that appeal must, we think, be in conformity with the provisions of the Code. We set aside the decision and remand the*case in order that the appeal may be disposed of according to law. The costs of this appeal will abide the result....
Kali Prosunno Basu Roy and ors. Vs. Lal Mohun Guha Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal258
Maclean, C.J.1. On the 18th November 1891, judgment was given in this case by the Subordinate Judge on an appeal to him. The effect of that judgment was to dismiss the suit against the defendants (the present appellants) with costs in that Court and in the Court below. It subsequently transpired that the decree drawn up, although it gave the defendants their costs before the Subordinate Judge, did not give them their costs before the first Court, and in consequence of that error the present appellants, on the 3rd of March 1894, made an application under Section 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the decree amended and made to harmonise with the judgment, and on the 10th March 1894 that application was granted. On the 26th February 1896, the appellants, who had thus obtained a judgment in their favour for their costs, took proceedings in execution for the purpose of recovering them. Their right to do so was disputed by the judgment-debtor, and disputed upon the ground that artic...
Kanai Lal Gowala and anr. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1897
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal885
Ghose and Wilkins, JJ.1. We think, having regard to the terms of Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, that the conviction in this case is not right. The learned Sessions Judge seems to think that there was no mistake of fact when the petitioner took steps to examine the palki. He says that the petitioner 'acted on a mere supposition, on the chance that the judgment-debtor might be in the palki. ' We find, however, that the palki was coming out at the time, not of the female but of the male apartments, and the judgment-debtor being in the house in question, the petitioners, in the action they took, naturally thought there was some reason to believe that the judgment-debtor was getting out of the way, (there having been a warrant issued for his arrest) so as to evade the service of such warrant.2. The lady who was in the palki has given her evidence in the case; and she says that the whole thing was the work of a moment. That being so, we are unable to say that any harm was really intend...
Goburdhone Saha and anr. Vs. Karuna Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal75
Maclean, C.J.1. On the first question as to whether the land, possession of which is sought to be recovered in this suit, is khamar land or not, there was no issue framed as to that before the Munsif, nor was that question gone into as a question of fact before the Subordinate Judge. Under these circumstances I think it is too late to raise it now.2. Upon the other point, as to whether the case falls within Sections 44 and 45 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, I see no reason to differ, notwithstanding the ingenious arguments and criticisms of Dr. Rash Behari Ghose upon the language of those sections, from the conclusion at which the learned Subordinate Judge has arrived in the matter. I think that the construction that he has put upon these sections is sound and is the right one. I agree both in the conclusion at which he has arrived and in the reasons for that conclusion. I think the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.Banerjee, J.3. I am of the same opinion. I only wish to add a f...
Manmatha Nath Mitter and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal194
Hobhouse, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the appellants, who were plaintiffs below, are entitled to compensation for land taken by the Government of India for the purpose of making a dock. The land consists of three plots, being respectively portions of three public roads within the ambit of a mouza belonging to the. plaintiffs. A large quantity of the plaintiffs' land in the mouza has also been taken and their compensation awarded. The land now in question is less than 20 bighas. The evidence shows that the roads were in use, two about fifty years ago, and one about 70; how much longer is left to conjecture.2. The Subordinate Judge decided partially against the plaintiffs and partially in their favour. As to some 7 bighas in the Budge-Budge road, he held there was evidence to show that it was 'taken' by the Government within the meaning of Act XLII of 1850, and that the title of the Government became indefeasible five years after the taking. As to the remaining 13 ...
Nuffer Chandra Pal Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Rajendra Lal Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal167
Banerjee, J.1. This was a suit to recover possession, together with mesne profits, of a tract of alluvial land, which is alleged to have re-formed on the original site of the plaintiffs' putni taluk Turuf Sagoona, a taluk which the plaintiffs have purchased at certain sales, some of which were held under Regulation VIII of 1819, and some in execution of decrees for arrears of rent. The defendant raised the plea of limitation, and various other objections not necessary to be noticed in detail for the purposes of this appeal.2. The plaintiffs sought to get over the plea of limitation in two ways, first, by showing that as auction-purchasers of the putni taluk, or rather taluks, at sales in satisfaction of arrears of rent, they were entitled to reckon time from the dates of the auction sales which were all within twelve years before the date of the institution of the suit; and, secondly, by showing that the disputed land became fit for cultivation within twelve years before the institutio...
Runjit Singh Vs. Jagannath Prasad Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal354
Banerjee, J.1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession and mesne profits of certain properties, seven in number, namely, two revenue-paying estates (in one of which only an 8 annas share is claimed), two dwelling houses, a temple and a garden, and a tank. The material allegations on which the plaintiff bases his suit are shortly these: That the properties in dispute originally belonged to Kumar Ram Chunder, the adopted son of Rajah Udmanta Singh, who was the brother of Rajah Hanumant Singh; that the plaintiff was the great grandson by adoption of the said Rajah Hanumant Singh, having been duly adopted on the 24th of August 1866 by the widow of Rajah Kirti Chand, grandson of Rajah Hanumant Singh; that Kumar Ram Chunder, having dedicated properties Nos. 1 and 2 of the schedule to the pLalnt (that is the two revenue-paying estates) to the worship of a certain idol, and having appointed Rani Annapurna, widow of Rajah Udmanta ...
Ram NaraIn Joshy Vs. Parmeswar NaraIn Mahta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal39
Trevelyan and Stevens, JJ.1. In this case an objection has been taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent to the hearing of the appeal. He contends that as the Court in which the appeal was originally filed had no jurisdiction, the value of the appeal being in excess of Rs. 5,000, this Court, in which the same appeal is, by virtue of an order made under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, now pending, cannot hear it. It is with extreme regret that we find ourselves compelled to give effect to this objection.2. The facts shortly stated are these: Two suits were decided at the same time by the Subordinate Judge of Mozufferpore. This case, which was an appeal from the judgment in one of those suits, was filed on the 3rd of September 1894 in the Court of the District Judge of Tirhoot, The appeal in the other suit was filed here, and has been heard by a Division Bench of this Court. When this appeal was filed in the District Judge's Court an officer of the Court made the following...
Mathura Mohun Lahiri and ors. Vs. Uma Sundari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal34
Macpherson and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Special Judge under Section 108 of the Tenancy Act, and a preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies, as the proceeding in which the decision was given was one under Section 104, and not a proceeding in which a dispute within the meaning of Section 106 was decided. It appears that in the course of a proceeding for the preparation of a record of rights, the landlords applied for a settlement of the rent, alleging inter alia that the tenants were holding land in excess of what they paid rent for, and that the rod of 18 inches to the cubit was the standard rod of measurement.2. The defendants put in written statements, alleging that the standard rod was one of 20 inches to the cubit. They denied that they held any excess land, and stated that they held their holding at a consolidated rent.3. The Settlement Officer proceeded to deal with these allegations of the parties treating the application of the lan...
Baidya Nath De Sarkar and anr. Vs. Ilim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal917
Macpherson and Ameer Ali, JJ.1. The plaintiffs are four-anna shareholders of a taluk, within which the first three defendants have a raiyati holding. They purchased a two-anna share of this taluk in 1287 (1880), and the other two-anna share in 1296...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »