Kolkata Court April 1898 Judgments
William Robert Fink Vs. Moharaj Baliadur Singh.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal642
O'Kinealy, J.1. The first question I have to consider is whether the plaintiff can maintain this suit in his own name; and I am of opinion that he can. The orders by which he was granted liberty to institute this suit gave that power to him in express terms, and the authority to give that power is, in my opinion, conferred on the Court by the provisions of Section 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By that section the Court has power to grant to the receiver 'all such powers as to bringing and defending suits and for the realisation, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of instruments in writing as the owner himself has;' and I read that as meaning that power is conferred upon the Court to substitute the receiver for the owner for those purposes, always supposing that the ownership of the property is completely represented in the s...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip Sing and anr. Vs. Khetrani Koer and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal869
Trevelyan and Steyens, JJ.1. In this case we regret that we are unable to agree with the learned Subordinate Judge in the view he has taken.2. The case is a simple one.3. It is alleged in the plaint that there were three persons, Kuldip Singh, Pardip Singh and Udit Narain Singh, who formed a joint Hindu family. Udit Narain Singh was a first cousin once removed of the others. On Udit Narain's death his interest passed to Kuldip Singh and Pardip Singh. As a matter of fact, Udit left a widow by name Khetrani Koer, Disputes arose between the plaintiffs, Kuldip and Pardip and Khetrani Koer, and those disputes were settled by an ikrarnamah. The ikrarnamah gives the lady possession for her life on account of her maintenance of her husband's share of the property, and there is a provision in it which has given rise to the present question. That provision is this: 'If I (that is Khetrani Koer) take and execute any sort of document then it will be null and void. And be it known that if any party...
Tag this Judgment!ishan Chandra Sinha Hikim and ors. Vs. Nilmadhub Patra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal787
O'Kinealy and Rampini, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in this suit sued for the rent of the years 1296 up to the 12 annas kist of 1299. The plaintiffs are 14 annas co-sharers. The defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are tenants of the land. They are also the owners of the remaining 2 annas of the landlord's interest. The matter is, however, immaterial, as the plaintiffs have been found to have been hitherto in separate collection of their 14 annas share of the rent. The plaintiffs are registered under Bengal Act VII of 1876 to the extent of 81/2 annas only. They are unregistered as to the remaining 5 1/2 annas. The lower Courts have given them a decree for 8 annas share of the rent claimed by them, except as respects the rent of 1296, which has been held to be barred by limitation. It is not clear why the plaintiffs have not got a decree for the remaining anna with regard to which they have been registered. But no question as to this arises in this appeal.2. The defendants appeal and contend that the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Amrito Lall Dutt Vs. Surnomoni Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal662
Maclean, C.J.1. The facts are not disputed on this appeal, and that being so, I do not propose to recapitulate thorn as they are accurately found and stated in the judgment of Mr. Justice Jenkins. The questions we have to decide are questions purely of law; they are stated in the judgment of the-Court below and it will be convenient to deal with them in the same order as in that judgment.2. The first question and one in sense the paramount question is whether the power to adopt in the testator's will is a valid power. It is urged for the respondents, against the validity of the power, that although it is competent to a Hindu testator to empower his widow to adopt, it is a power which can only be given to the widow and to the widow alone, and that, inasmuch as in the present case the power is given to her conjointly with two other persons viz., the father and uncle of the testator, the power is invalid. If this contention be well founded, there is, at once, an end of the plaintiff's cas...
Tag this Judgment!Abbas Peada and anr. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal736
Ameer Ali and Henderson, JJ.1. In this case the petitioners, Abbas Peada and Chhirru alias Shibu Gain were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs with a jury, who convicted the former under Sections 365 and 346, and the latter under Sections 365 and 346 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code; and the Judge has sentenced them to four years' and three years' rigorous imprisonment, respectively.2. The grounds upon which we admitted the appeal were of a twofold character, namely, first, that the Judge had misdirected the jury in his charge with reference to certain evidence, which was not legally admissible against the accused; and, secondly, that there was no sufficient explanation of the law in the charge.3. The case has been argued by the learned pleader for the appellants on one side and the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the Crown on the other. The appellants' pleader has taken three principal grounds upon which he impugns the verdict of the jury; a...
Tag this Judgment!Khetter Kristo Mitte Vs. Kally Prosunno Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal887
Jenkins, J.1. This suit was commenced in 1887, the attorneys for the plaintiff being at that time Messrs. Gregory and Jones. Later on there was a change to Babu Mohini Mohun Chatterji, and on the occasion of that change he paid a sum of Rs. 2,192-7-6 to the former attorneys at the plaintiff's request. On the 9th September 1895 a decree was passed, and by it a sum of Rs. 17,000 became payable from the defendant to the plaintiff. Each party was to bear his own costs of the suit. The costs up to and including the decree have been taxed as between attorney and client, and Rs. 2,017-13-6 have been allowed on that taxation. Subsequent costs to the amount of Rs. 613 have also been incurred. From time to time payments on account have been made, which leave Rs. 914-4-9 still due from the plaintiff to Babu Mohini Mohun Chatterji on account of his costs, besides subsequent costs which are still untaxed.2. In execution of the decree in the suit certain immoveable property was attached and advertis...
Tag this Judgment!ishan Chunder Roy Vs. Sukhamoni Chowdhrani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal844
Hobhouse, J.1. The appellant and respondent are two co-owners of lands subject to payment of rent. The owner of the rent obtained decrees for a large sum in arrear, and to save the estate from sale the respondent and another co-owner raised a sum of Rs. 50,000 by borrowing from various persons. That sum was deposited in Court, and on the 1st April 1885 was paid to the judgment-creditor. The respondent is plaintiff in the present suit and is suing the appellant for contribution to the extent of her share in the estate. The only question before their Lordships is whether or no his suit is barred by lapse of time.2. The cause of action arose on the 1st April 1885. The suit was brought in February 1891. If the limit of time is three years it would be barred in April 1888 unless saved by acknowledgment or payment. Both Courts below have considered that the case falls within article 61 of Act XV of 1877, and the argument here has proceeded on that footing. Without further examining the point...
Tag this Judgment!Mokoond Lal Singh Vs. Nobodip Chunder Singha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal881
Maclean, C.J.1. This is an application by a father, originally of the Hindu persuasion, but now a Christian, to have himself appointed guardian of his infant son, a boy of about 12 years old. The real object of the application is to obtain the custody of the minor. There is virtually no dispute as to the facts. The father in April 1893 embraced Christianity, and then, if he did not actually abandon, at any rate left his child under the care and custody of his grandfather, who was a Hindu, and after his death he remained, as he still is, in the care of his uncle, who is also a Hindu. The boy, hitherto, has been brought up in the Hindu religion, surrounded by Hindu relations. There is no suggestion, least of all any well-founded suggestion, that the child is not being well cared for, or that he is unhappy. No considerations of that nature arise. The father is about 33 years old: he is not well off, his monthly income being some 15 rupees. He apparently lives at a Christian Mission House ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›