Kolkata Court January 1898 Judgments
Rajani Mohun Das and ors. Vs. Tepu Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal522
Banerjee, J.1. 'This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, respondent, for possession of a one-third share of a plot of land measuring 21 bighas, on the allegation that the said land appertained to resumed estate No. 9870 of the Dacca Collectorate, which belonged originally to the proforma defendants; that defendant No. 4 was in possession of two-thirds share of the same, having purchased it at a sale in execution of a decree; that the plaintiff purchased the remaining one-third share thereof from the proforma defendants after they and their predecessors had held possession of the same for upwards of twelve years; and that the plaintiff bad been unjustly kept out of possession of the land in dispute by the principal defendants since 1891.2. 'The principal defendants in their defence urged that the suit was barred by limitation; that the suit was also barred under Sections 13 and 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that the land in dispute originally belonged to one Mr. P...
Tag this Judgment!Mothura Mohun Lahiri and ors. Vs. Mati Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal781
Ghose and Wilkins, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent at the rate of Rs. 103 per year, upon a kabuliat executed by the defendant in the year 1893. The defendant pleaded that the kabuliat was not a bond fide transaction, but was the result of coercion exercised by the plaintiff and that the rent payable was Rs. 39-3 a year.2. The Munsif, among other issues, laid down the following(1) Whether the kabuliat was illegally and forcibly extorted from the defendant?(2) At what rate should the plaintiff recover rent?3. It transpired in the course of the trial that the rent of the defendant's holding had been once enhanced in the year 1292 (B.S.); and that there was a further enhancement in the year 1893 by the kabuliat executed by the defendant. The defendant, however, admitted in his deposition that he had been paying for some years at the rate of Rs. 50.4. We should here mention that, in the course of argument before the Munsif, the plaintiff stated that the increased jumma menti...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Chunder Bandopadhya Vs. Saratmoni Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal911
Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application by a lady named Saratmoni Debya for the probate of a will, dated the 15th November 1895, alleged to have been executed by her husband, Janaki Nath Mookerjee. The will was undoubtedly registered on the 18th of November 1895. Janaki Nath died on the 11th of December 1895, and it was propounded on the 17th January 1896.2. Caveats were entered, one by a person named Nirmal Chunder Banerjee on the 24th February 1896, and the other on the 23rd January 1897, on behalf of the minor, Shibdhone Banerjee, by his father and guardian, Mani Lal Banerjee. In the caveats the factum of the will was impugned. It was stated that the alleged testator was not of a disposing mind; and it was contended that if the will was executed its execution was not proper under the law.3. A considerable body of evidence has been adduced on behalf of the pro-pounder of the will. Nirmal, who was the contesting objector, gave no evidence; and the learned D...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chunder Manna and ors. Vs. GosaIn Das Kalay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal594
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree for possession of certain immoveable property and for damages. The first Court, on the 21st May 1886, gave the plaintiff a decree for possession and for damages against all the defendants. Against that decree all the defendants, except No. 1, preferred an appeal, and the Appellate Court, on the 2nd July 1887, reversed so much of the decree as made the appealing defendants liable for damages, but it affirmed the decree in every other respect. And a second appeal from the decree of the Appellate Court was dismissed by the High Court on the 9th of July 1888.2. The first application for execution was made in the Court of the first Munsif of Howrah on the 7th of July 1891; it was returned by the first Munsif on the 21st of August following for want of jurisdiction; and it was presented on the same day to the proper Court. The application asked for issue of notice on the judgment-debtor for delivery of possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Nath Sen and anr. Vs. Trailokhya Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal315
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent with interest, based on a kabuliyat, and the suit was brought, not against the person who had executed the kabuliyat, but against the purchaser of his holding at a sale for arrears of rent.2. The defence, so far as it is necessary to consider it for the purposes of this appeal, was that the claim for interest was illegal, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any interest, as the rent had been tendered.3. The first Court found for the defendant upon most of the points raised, and decreed the claim of the plaintiffs only in part.4. On appeal the Lower Appellate Court has modified that decree, and allowed interest in accordance with the terms of Section 67 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, holding that the rate of rent specified in the kabuliyat was not recoverable as against the defendant.5. In second appeal the only question raised is whether the decision of the Lower Appellate Court as regards interest is correct.6. T...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman of the Serampore Municipality Vs. Inspector of Factories, Hoo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal454
Hill and Stevens, JJ.1. This was a prosecution under Clause (g), Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Factories Act (XV of 1881), as amended by Section 14, Act XI of 1891.2. It appears that on the 20th of July last the Civil Medical Officer of Serampore, who is a Joint Inspector of Factories, inspected the Hastings Mill between the hours of 9 and 11 A.M. and found the latrines used by the operatives in a filthy state, the cause of that condition of things being that the pipe between the inner and the main outer cesspools bad become blocked with solid nightsoil, jute and other things.3. In the first place a prosecution was instituted against the manager of the mill, but the prosecution failed.4. The present case was then instituted.5. The sanction required by proviso (1) to Section 15, Act XV of 1881, as amended by Section 14, Act XI of 1891, was accorded to the prosecution of the Municipal Commissioners of Serampore. Process was at first issued against the Chairman of the Municipality....
Tag this Judgment!Mohun Bibi Vs. Saral Chand Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal371
Jenkins, J.1. On the 14th November 1893 the defendant executed, in favour of Luckhinarain Singh, the original plaintiff in the suit, a mortgage of certain immoveable properties, which had devolved on the defendant under the will of his grandfather, and on the 20th February 1895 this suit was instituted, whereby it is prayed:(a) That the defendant may be decreed by this Honourable Court to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 5,000, together with the interest due thereon, and the costs of this suit on some day to be fixed by this Honourable Court, and that in default thereof the right to redeem the said mortgaged premises may be foreclosed.(b) That the said premises may be sold, and the sale proceeds applied in and towards the repayment of the said sum of Rs. 5,000, and the interest thereon, and the costs of this suit.(c) That if the sale proceeds be not sufficient for the payment in full of the said amounts, the said defendant be decreed and ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of...
Tag this Judgment!iswar Chandra Dutt and ors. Vs. Haris Chandra Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal718
Ghose, J.1. The facts of this case are stated by the Subordinate Judge in his judgment as follows: One Mohesh Chunder Dutt obtained a decree for possession of a jote against the defendants, appellants (it should be plaintiffs, respondents), and also for mesne profits for the period of dispossession. Subsequently to the passing of the decree, on the 12th of Sraban 1298, Mohesh Chunder received from the judgment-debtors the amount due on account of wasilat, and for a further consideration of Rs. 156 relinquished an eight-anna share of the jote in favour of the judgment-debtors by an ekramamah which was duly registered. By a subsequent kobala, (also registered), dated the 19th of Bhadra 1299, Mohesh sold the remaining eight annas share of the jote to the judgment-debtors. But, on his death, his heirs, the present appellants, took out execution of the decree, and the judgment-debtors raised the objection that the decree was satisfied by virtue of the ekramamah and kobala executed by Mohesh...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Mohan Chowbey Vs. Hari Charan Das Bairagi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal637
Hill and Stevens, JJ.1. In this case a complaint was made to an Honorary Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 1 of Act XIII of 1859, in respect of a contract which was made in Calcutta, but the breach of which is said to have taken place in a portion of the N.-W. P., to which the Magistrate states the provisions of the Act had not been extended. The Magistrate considered that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, inasmuch as the breach of the contract had taken place beyond the local jurisdiction of his Court, at a place outside the limits of the Town of Calcutta. The complainant has applied for a revision of the order made by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate dismissing his complaint. Section 1 of Act XIII of 1859 provides that in the case of a breach of contract to which that Act applies a complaint may be made to a Magistrate of Police. We think that the terms of the section do not imply that the complaint is to be made to the Magistrate of Police in the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Kumud Mohun Dutt Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Rai Charan Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal571
HeldThat the judgment in the previous suit operated as res judicata, notwithstanding that no second appeal was allowed by law in that suit....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »