Kolkata Court June 1898 Judgments
Durga Prosonno Bose Vs. Raghu Nath Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal254
Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ.1. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who has, in his judgment set forth at some length the arguments on both sides. He holds, and we think properly, that Article 99, Schedule II of the Limitation Act of 1877 was applicable to this suit, the period running from the time when the plaintiff was compelled to make the payments; and applying strictly the decision in the case of Dayal Jairaj v. Khatav Ladha (1875) 12 Bom. H.C. 97 (106), be was of opinion that the two defendants who joined with the plaintiff in executing the bond in favour of Trilochan Nag were liable for contribution to the plaintiff, but again reading strictly the case to which we have' just referred, he thought that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain his action as against the defendant No. 1.2. Now, it is necessary to bear in mind the frame of the suit. Strictly speaking, this is a suit for contribution, an action in equity well known to any one at all familiar with the practice a...
Tag this Judgment!Chundra Kanta Roy Vs. Sarat Chunder Roy Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal805
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff sued before the Subordinate Judge of Rungpore exercising the powers of a Small Cause Court for certain fees for appearing and acting as a pleader for the defendants.2. There was no written agreement within the terms of Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879, and the fees claimed are not within Section 27.3. The Judge of the Small Cause Court has referred to two judgments in I.L.R. 9 Mad. 375, and I.L.R. 12 All, 169, and upon these he has held that the plaintiff's suit, without a written agreement, is maintainable notwithstanding Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners' Act.4. It seems us that the Allahabad case is decidedly against that view. The Act, (sic) it, contemplates that legal practitioners shall be entitled to received Section 27 the amount payable under certain rules prepared within the (sic) section, and that they shall not be entitled to claim anything further (sic) of Section 28 are observed. Section 28 requires that there s in possessio...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Pratap Chunder Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal852
Maclean, C.J., and Banerjee, J.1. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge in thinking that an order like the one made in this case regulating the boat traffic at a certain landing place, in the manner directed by the order, is not an order that is authorized by Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The very terms of the order go to show that it is not one directing 'any person to abstain from, a certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management 'within the meaning of the Section. That being so, the order is-not authorised by the provisions of the law under which it purports to have been made, and there is no other law that we are aware of, under which the Magistrate could make such an order, nor does the mere fact of the order purporting to be made under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code prevent this Court from interfering with it in revision, if the order is one that cannot be made under that Section. The view we ta...
Tag this Judgment!Punardeo NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Sarup Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal858
Maclean, C.J.1. This rule raises a short but somewhat interesting point. The question is, whether the Diara known as the Mutier Diara lies in the Balia or Sarun district. That depends upon what the boundary line of these two districts is. Now, we find that by a notification of the Government of India, dated the 5th of December 1888, it was declared: 'That the deep stream of the Gogra is the boundary between the Balia district in the North-Western Provinces and the Sarun district in Bengal, up to the point where the boundary line between mouzah Ibrahimabad Nanhara in Balia, and mouzah Shitab Diara in Bengal, meets that river.'2. The Sessions Judge finds: 'The Government have frequently notified that the deep stream of the Gogra is the boundary between the two districts. Now at present, and apparently for a year or two, Mutier Diara is an island with a deep stream north of it, and another south of it. This latter is both wide and deep, but the stream north is a trifle deeper and seems mo...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Chunder Banerjee Vs. Mahomed Siddik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal11
Hobhouse, J.1. This suit was instituted on the 26th January 1893. The plaintiff prays for a declaration of his ownership and of his right to registration. The defendant alleges that he is owner. The property consists of several houses and parcels of land in Calcutta. Each party claims to be in possession. Bach party derives his title from a lady, named Said-un-nissa, who, in the year 1858, was the undoubted owner. Neither party is, or has ever been, in actual physical possession of any part of the property, which has been let to tenants. The possession alleged on both sides consists in granting leases, obtaining kabuliyats, and recovering rent. From the year 1880 onwards an irregular and indirect legal warfare has been carried on by the rival claimants, each suing a tenant of some portion of the property for rent. This suit is the first attempt to put the whole title directly in issue between the principal claimants. An objection has been taken to its form, but both Courts below have m...
Tag this Judgment!Anantram and ors. Vs. Chuni Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal893
Maclean, C.J.1. The applicant must pay the costs of this application. He has come for an indulgence, and as he asks for an indulgence he ought to pay the costs of obtaining it.2. That, in my view, is the principle which ought to apply generally to applications of this class, and that view is supported by the practice in the courts of England. I think that should be the general rule; I do not say it is an inflexible rule. Any way under the circumstances of this case the applicant must pay the costs of the application.Banerjee, J.3. I agree in the order made as to costs, having regard to the special circumstances of this case, which are that the decree-holder was, in the first instance, unnecessarily made to appear before the Judge on the Original Side upon this application for stay of execution. That is a point upon which, speaking for myself, I must say that the judgment-debtor has not been able to satisfy me that he was right. But, as a matter of general principle, I am of opinion tha...
Tag this Judgment!Zamir Mandal Vs. Tarini Charan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1898
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.296
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Nadia, dated the 14th Agust 1896.2. The suit was for rent on a contract between the parties, contained in a qabulyat. After the qabulyat, but when, as the Judge finds, it was in full force (indeed he finds it is now in full force), the plaintiff got a settlement of land, and in that settlement the rates of rent fixed were those prevailing in the village. It has always been the case under Regulation VIII of 1882 that a Settlement Officer does not settle rents but records the rates of rent existing in the village. The argument of the pleader for the appellant is this, that where a person takes a settlement from the Government at certain rates he has not the power to let the lands at any other rate hut is hound by the fixed rates: in short, he says that where rents are not settled, the ordinary rates recorded under Regulation VIII of 1882 prevent any contract rates. That is a proposition which cannot he supported.The result is ...
Tag this Judgment!Driver Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal798
Banerjee and Stevens, JJ.1. This is a rule calling on the Magistrate of the District to show cause why the order of the Magistrate of Monghyr, dated the 15th February 1898, calling upon the petitioner to execute bonds with sureties, should not be set aside, on the following grounds, namely, first, that the order is not warranted by the finding arrived at by the Magistrate; second, that it is inconsistent with the notice which he was called upon to answer; and third, that it is not warranted by law, and is otherwise not a fit and proper order under the circumstances of the case.2. The learned Magistrate has submitted a written explanation, and Mr. Jackson appeared to show cause on behalf of the Manjoul Factory between the proprietors of which and the petitioner the dispute that has given rise to these proceedings is said to exist.3. As the rule is issued only upon the Magistrate to show cause, and as the order that is sought to be set aside is one that is only intended to secure the pea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›