Kolkata Court November 1899 Judgments
Ramdoyal Serowgie Vs. Ram Deo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27NULL269(P.C.)
Sale, J.1. In this case an application is made by an attorney for an order for payment by the plaintiff and the defendants of taxed costs due to him by the second defendant Luchminarain. The application is for an order to be made by this Court in the exercise of its summary jurisdiction.2. The facts shortly are these: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants to recover Rs. 9,861 on a bond which was alleged to have been executed by both the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. On the 18th May 1899, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree for the amount claimed, and on the 14th August he attached the stock-in-trade of the shop of Luchminarain, the second defendant, in Akyab. Thereupon Luchminarain came to Calcutta and instructed Babu N.C. Roy, his attorney, to take steps to set aside the decree on the grounds that no service had been effected on him of the summons; and that he was not a partner of Ramdeo and had not executed the bond in question. Certain proceedings were had...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Somir Bowra Alias Somir Baba
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal368
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. The occurrence, which forms the subject matter of these proceedings, took place in 1891.2. The accused, who is charged with having killed Koliman Bibi, has until recently been in a lunatic asylum. He is now reported to be able to stand his trial. He is deaf and dumb and cannot be made to understand the proceedings, which have been taken. He has been committed to the Court of Session on a charge of murder, and the proceedings have under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure been sent for our orders. We have considered whether the commitment having been made the Sessions trial should be held. Section 341 declares that in such a case 'if the enquiry results in a commitment, or if such trial results in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case, and the High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit.' The law evidently does not contemplate that the Sessions trial shall neces...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoopendra NaraIn Dutt and ors. Vs. Romon Krishna Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal417
Maclean, C.J.1. In this case certain persons, as landlords, granted a lease of certain immoveable property to certain persons as tenants. By an arrangement between some of the co-sharer landlords and one of the co-sharer tenants who was entitled to a fractional share in the tenure, the latter has paid for many years past his share of the rent to the co-sharer landlords I have referred to, who are now suing him for arrears of his share of the rent. The co-sharer tenant now sets up for the first time, and after this long period of payment, that he is entitled to a reduction of rent in respect of a deficiency existing in the area of his tenure as compared with the area for which rent has been previously paid by him, and claims the benefit of Section 52, Sub-section (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The question we have to decide is whether or not, as a mere co-sharer in the tenure, he is entitled in this suit to which neither the other co-sharer landlords nor the other co-sharer tenants are ...
Tag this Judgment!Deno Nath Santh Vs. Nibaran Chandra Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal422
Francis William Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The question in substance which we are called upon to decide is whether, or not, we should allow to the mortgagee, under the mort gage, which is set out in the Paper Book, a less amount in the shape of interest than he alleges is stipulated for by the contract, and we are asked by the mortgagor to do this by putting in force the equitable principles of Section 74 of the Contract Act.2. The parties in this case are adults, they made their own bargain, and as regards interest, the contract runs in these terms: 'On account of interest of the said sum of money, you shall take the profits of the said lands, and I will pay Rs. 20 per annum as the balance of interest from year to year by getting the said amount endorsed on the back of this document, and if I fail to do so, then at the end of the year the said amount of interest shall be added to the principal; and for the total amount whatever it will be I will pay up to the date of repayment interest...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmomoyi Dasi Vs. Andi Si
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal376
Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.1. This suit has been dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court as barred by limitation.2. The question for determination is whether it was right in doing sp. The facts are that the suit was instituted on the 11th March 1896, one day before the expiry of the period of limitation. The court-fees were deficient, and the Munsif on the 13th March ordered the deficient court-fees to be paid in within a week. They were not paid in till the 21st March, that is, until at least one day after the expiry of the time allowed by the Court. Objection to the suit on the ground of limitation was taken in the Court of First Instance, but was overruled. The objection was renewed in the Lower Appellate Court and prevailed. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the suit could not be regarded as instituted within the period of limitation, as the 21st March, when the deficient court-fees were actually paid in, was after the period allowed by the Court for their payment.3. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Pran Nath Mitter Vs. Haro Mohun Roy Churamoni and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal364
Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Special Judge of Cuttack, affirming an order by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Puri, passed in a settlement case under Chapter X, Act VIII of 1885.2. All the proceedings in the case, as well as the Judge's order now under appeal, are of date prior to the passing of Act III of 1898, B.C. So this appeal has admittedly to be disposed of under the provisions of the former Chapter X.3. The dispute is as to the existence of a right of way, and the parties are two neighbouring tenants. The Assistant Settlement Officer held the right of way over the defendant's land to exist, and the Special Judge has affirmed his order.4. In appeal it is urged (1) that the Settlement Officer was not justified in recording the existence of the alleged right of way, as it is not one of the conditions or incidents of a tenancy he had jurisdiction to record under Section 102, Clause (h): (2) that under the ruling of this Court in Pandit Sir...
Tag this Judgment!Gahar Khalipa Bipari and anr. Vs. Kasi Muddi Jamadar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal415
Maclean, C.J.1. The learned Judge in the Court below has stated with accuracy what the question in this case is. First, he says, the question is, whether as between the decree-holder and judgment-debtor, the question of the saleability, or otherwise, of an occupancy holding can be determined in the execution stage under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and his conclusion is--it is stated at the end of his judgment--that 'the point now under discussion could not be raised by the appellant tenant; or in other words, the question did not properly arise.' I have the misfortune to differ from the learned Judge. It seems to me clearly a question arising between the parties to the suit, a question arising between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor in the suit, in which the decree was passed and relating to the execution of the decree. This view is consistent with that held by this Court in the cases of Durga Charan Mandal v. Kali Prasanna Sarhar (1899) I.L.R., 26 Cal., 727; ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Chandra Roy and anr. Vs. Girish Chandra Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27NULL473(P.C.)
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. The facts of this case, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purposes of this appeal, are shortly these: The plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 to 10 were the joint owners of a taluk appertaining to which there was a non-transferable occupancy holding belonging to one Chidam Mal. The defendants Nos. 2 to 6 brought to sale and purchased that holding in execution of a money decree against Chidam Mal and took possession of the land. The plaintiffs brought this suit to get joint possession with the defendants of their 12 annas share in the land. The first Court gave them a decree, which has been confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.2. It is argued on an inference based on Section 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jawadul Huq v. Ram Das Saha (1896) I.L.R., 24 Cal., 143, that the occupancy-right is severable from the tenancy-right and that although the occupancy-right could not be sold, ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul HosseIn and ors. Vs. Kasi Sahu Minor by His Mother Debi Sahuni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal362
Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Purneah, dated the 10th August 1897. The suit was originally brought in the Munsif's Court, and the Munsif acceded to the plaintiffs' prayer to be allowed to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit under Section 373 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant then appealed to the District Judge, and he set aside the order of the Munsif under Section 373, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The plaintiffs now appeal and contend that the District Judge's order is wrong, as no appeal lay to him from the Munsif's order under Section 373.3. It is clear that an appeal does lie to this Court from the order of the District Judge, because the order was one dismissing the plaintiffs' suit, and this order is a decree within the definition given in Section 2 of the Code.4. It further appears to us that the order of the District Judge is wrong, inasmuch as no appeal lay to him from an order und...
Tag this Judgment!Woolfun Bibi Vs. Jesarat Sheikh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-06-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal262
Sale and Stanley, JJ.1. It is clear that the statements alleged to be defamatory were made by the accused in the course of their evidence as witnesses in a Court of Justice, for these statements were relevant to the issue in the case under enquiry. Under these circumstances, upon the authorities cited by the Officiating Sessions Judge, we think that the accused cannot be prosecuted for defamation in respect of these statements, and that the conviction and sentence must be set aside, the fine, if paid, to be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›