Kolkata Court March 1898 Judgments
Gonesh Das Vs. Gunessar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal789
Trevelyan and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case the learned Subordinate Judge of Mozufferpore has set aside a sale held in execution of a certificate for the recovery of public demands given under s. 5 of the Public Demands Recovery Act.2. The decree has been made on the ground that the Revenue authorities have set aside the certificate and sale since the institution of this suit. The only question argued before us, and the only question which arises in this appeal is, whether under the circumstances the Commissioner of Patna had authority so to do.3. The following are the only facts to which it is necessary for us to refer. The certificate is dated the 23rd of June 1893.4. On the 9th of September 1893 the sale was held.5. On the 5th of December 1893 possession was given to the purchaser by the Revenue authorities.6. On the 2nd of January 1894 the proprietor preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of the Patna Division, alleging that he had no knowledge of any of the proceedings and asking ...
Tag this Judgment!Taju Pramanik and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal711
Ameer Ali and Hill, JJ.1. Eight persons were charged in the Sessions Court of Mymensingh under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and tried with a jury on the 3rd of December 1897. Four of the men so charged were acquitted; against the remaining four named, respectively, Taju Pramanik, Kasir Khan, Shahabatullah alias Sadatullah and Surat Khan the jury returned an unanimous verdict of guilty. Surat Khan was convicted under Section 412 and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge to six months' rigorous imprisonment; Taju Pramanik was convicted under Section 395 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment; whilst Kasir Khan and Shahabatullah alias Sadatullah were convicted under Section 395 read with Section 75 and sentenced to four and five years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.2. On appeal it has been contended before us that the verdict of the jury was erroneous owing to the misdirection of the learned Sessions Judge in not calling their attention either to th...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Prosad Singh and ors. Vs. Punuk Lall Mundar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal717
O'Kinealy and Rampini, JJ.1. This is a suit for arrears of rent, to which objection is raised by the defendant that the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue for rent, inasmuch as their names have not been registered under the provisions of Section 78 of Bengal Act VII of 1876. The learned District Judge has overruled this objection and decreed the suit, and the defendant now appeals to this Court.2. We are of opinion that the judgment of the District Judge is not correct. We think that the objection under Section 78 of the Land Registration Act must prevail. The learned District Judge says that the case of Surjakanta Acharya Bahadur v. Hemanta Kumari (1889) I.L.R. 16 Cal. 706 is not a precedent in this case, because that refers to a case of transfer of proprietorship and not to one, as in this case, of sons succeeding their parents. We think, however, that under Section 78 it is immaterial how the transfer of proprietorship is effected, whether it is a case of transfer by purchase or a c...
Tag this Judgment!Bhugwati Kuweri Chowdhrani Vs. Chutterput Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal725
O'Kinealy and Rampini, JJ.1. The only point raised in this appeal is as to whether the defendant is liable to pay road cess to the plaintiff at the same rate as that at which the plaintiff has been held bound to pay road cess to the Collector.2. The plaintiff is the holder of an estate in which the defendant holds a patni tenure, and the plaintiff has been held liable by the Collector to pay road cess upon the basis of certain valuation rolls of 1892. The defendant has been paying road cess for some years at the rate specified in these papers, but in this suit he contends that he is not liable to pay road cess at that rate any longer, in consequence of the valuation roll not having been published under Section 35 of the Cess Act, and that he is liable to pay according to the previous valuation' of 1889.3. The Subordinate Judge has found in favour of the defendant, being of opinion that the publication of the valuation rolls under Section 35 of the Cess Act is a condition precedent to a...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Kandha Pershad Vs. Lala Lal Behary Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal872
Trevelyan and Banerjee, JJ.1. The first question, which we have to determine, is whether a second appeal, that is an appeal to this Court, lies.2. The suit was brought in a Small Cause Court. The decree was, under the provisions of Section 224 of the Civil Procedure Code, sent for execution to the Court of the first Munsif of Arrah, and certain landed property has been attached by such Court.3. The judgment-debtor objected to the decree being executed on the ground that the application for execution was barred by the law of limitation. The learned Munsif disallowed that objection. There was an appeal to the Judge, who has upheld the Munsif's decision. A second appeal has been preferred to this Court. The respondent has objected that no second appeal lies. We have to consider such objection. This question depends, in our opinion, entirely upon the construction which should be placed upon Sections 228 and 586 of the Civil Procedure Code. The former section provides that where a decree is...
Tag this Judgment!Cutler Palmer and Co. Vs. the British India Steam Navigation Co., Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal654
Maclean, C.J.1. This case raises a short point, but one not altogether free from difficulty. The question we have to decide appears from the reference made by the Judge of the Small Cause Court and I need not recapitulate the facts. The question really turns upon what meaning we are to attribute to the words, inserted by the defendants in writing in the Bill of Lading, 'Hogshead brandy covered with gunny, not responsible for condition and contents.' I agree with the contention of the plaintiff's that, prima facie, the defendants were bound to deliver the goods in good order and so forth. But this obligation is subject expressly to the conditions in the Bill of Lading, one of which is that which I have read. As appeal's from the finding of fact in the reference, the cask of brandy was shipped at Madras in good order and condition, but on arrival at Calcutta was found to be empty. The question is, are the defendants liable for the loss of the brandy? They repudiate such liability, and re...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Raut Vs. Kali Churn Ram and Khubi Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal703
Maclean, G.J.1. The question we have to answer is, whether or not Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to a sale of mortgaged property under a decree made in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The question has arisen by reason of the decision in Ashruf Ali Chowdhry v. Net Lal Sahu (1896) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 682 from which the referring Judges, Trevelyan and Stevens, JJ., dissented. That case appears to me to be based upon the view that under rules framed by this Court (C. O. No. 13, dated 27th April 1892) 'the provisions of the Code were made applicable to sales of mortgaged property ordered by the Court under the Transfer of Property Act.' I think this, which is the foundation of that judgment, is a mistake; the rules in question only make certain sections of the Code applicable to such sales, and not the whole Code. Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code only became law in 1894, whilst the above rules came into effect in April 1892. The judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed WahiduddIn Vs. Hakiman Alias Hakku
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal757
Maclean, C.J.1. The question referred for the decision of the Full Bench in this case is, whether when an application has been made under Section 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and notice has been given to the parties to the alleged arbitration (other than the applicant), the jurisdiction of the Court to order the award to be filed and to allow proceedings to be taken under it, is taken away by a mere denial of the reference to the arbitration on an objection to the validity of that reference. The affirmative of the proposition involved in the reference has no doubt been decided by more than one Division Bench of this Court, and it further has the support of the opinion expressed, though unnecessarily for the purposes of their decision, by certain members of a Full Bench Court in the case of Surjan Raot v. Bhikari Raot (1893) I.L.R. 21 Cal.213; see 224. There is, however, no authority on the point by which we are bound, so that it is open to us to consider the question on the word...
Tag this Judgment!Bunsidhur Singh and ors. Vs. Harkhoo Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal876
Trevelyan and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case the learned Subordinate Judge, from whose judgment the present appeal has been preferred, has set aside a sale purporting to be for arrears of Government revenue, on the ground that there were no arrears, and that, therefore, the Collector had no power to sell the property.2. The first question which we have to determine is whether there were any arrears. If there were arrears, it would follow that the suit must fail. If there were no arrears, there remains the question whether, having regard to the fact that the absence of arrears was not declared and specified in an appeal to the Commissioner, the provisions of Section 33 of the Revenue Sale Law do not bar this suit.3. With regard to the first question, we had at first some little difficulty in understanding the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, but when we come to examine the evidence, we see no reason to differ from the conclusion at which he has arrived. There was a butwara of th...
Tag this Judgment!Girendro Coomar Dutt Vs. Kumud Kumari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal611
Sale, J.1. The main question which arises for determination in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a further charge for Rs. 8,000 by way of equitable mortgage in respect of certain property which admittedly was mortgaged to him. The facts are of a very simple character, and are in my opinion very clear, though as regards one point a question arises as to what is the proper inference to be drawn from thorn. The defendant Johurry Lall Pal carried on a piece goods business in Calcutta, and for the purposes of his business from time to time borrowed certain sums of money from Rajender Dutt, the father of the plaintiff. The transactions between Rajender Dutt and Johurry Lall Pal commenced by a loan from Rajender Dutt to Johurry Lall Pal of a sum of Rs. 10,000 as security, for which Johurry Lall Pal deposited title-deeds of the property in suit with Rajender Dutt, intending thereby to create an equitable charge as security for the loan in favour of Rajender Dutt. Subsequently J...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »