Kolkata Court March 1899 Judgments
In Re: in the Goods of A.S. Gubboy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal408
Sale, J.1. This is an application for a grant of letters of administration of the property and credits of Aaron Shalome Gubboy, deceased, limited for the purpose of reconveying the premises comprised in a mortgage to the mortgagor.2. It is stated in a petition verified in the usual way that the 'deceased died without leaving any properties or effects to be administered unto,' and that he had no beneficial interest in the mortgage the premises comprised in which are to be reconveyed.3. It appears that this mortgage has been treated as belonging to the estate of the brother of the deceased, and that the ad valorem fee on the amount secured thereby has been paid.4. It is said that having regard to the nature of the limited grant prayed for, no assets can come into the hands of the administrator, and that this is a case in which an administration bond may be dispensed with. But the law does not admit of this being done. Section 256 of the Indian Succession Act requires a bond to be given i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Goods of P.J. Avdall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal404
Sale, J.1. This is an application by the Administrator-General for letters of administration, The petition contains a schedule of assets, from which no deduction is claimed. The only question is whether the signature of the Administrator-General should be accepted as a sufficient verification under Section 12 of the Administrator-General's Act II of 1874, or whether he should be required to make an affidavit in the form prescribed by Act XI of 1899. The form of affidavit prescribed by this Act in itself sufficiently indicates that it was intended to be used by applicants other than the Administrator-General The Administrator-General, as a public officer by Section 12 of Act II of 1874, is exempted from verifying otherwise than by his signature any petition presented by him under the provisions of the Act. See In the Goods of McComiskey (1893) I.L.R., 20 Cal., 879. This section, unless expressly repealed cannot be treated as having ceased to be operative.2. Under the circumstances an or...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchiram Bagani Vs. Nisa Chand Gaita and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal579
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent to recover possession of a plot of land, on his jamai right, that is, his right as tenant thereof, as well as on a title acquired by twelve years' adverse possession.2. The question for decision is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree merely upon proof of previous possession for a period less than twelve years, on the ground that the defendant has established no title, the suit having been brought more than six months after the date of dispossession. That question was raised in the Courts below. The first Court answered it in the negative, and dismissed the suit. The Lower Appellate Court, on appeal by the plaintiff has answered the question in the affirmative and given the plaintiff a decree.3. In second appeal it is contended that this view is wrong in law; and in support of the contention urged on behalf of the defendants appellants the cases of Ertaza Hossein v. Bany Mistry (1...
Tag this Judgment!Jib Lal Gir Vs. Jogmohan Gir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal576
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Sections 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code of being a member of an unlawful assembly and of theft, and in addition to the sentences passed he has been required under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to give security to keep the peace. A rule has been granted on his application to consider the conviction and sentence for theft and the order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The complainant and the petitioner have for some time past been disputing regarding the right to the properties which have formed the subject-matter of the theft, and various orders have been obtained from the Civil Courts on this subject. But it is clear that when the act found to constitute the offence of theft was committed no order had been obtained against the petitioner. His act cannot therefore be regarded as a dishonest act within the terms of the Penal Code so as to constitute the offence of theft. Mr. Jac...
Tag this Judgment!Kamikhya Nath Mukerjee and anr. Vs. Hari Churn Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal611
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, respondents, who are the reversionary heirs of the defendant No. 3, a Hindu widow, for a declaration that the alienation made by the defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is invalid beyond the life-time of defendant No. 3, on the ground that the transfer was made without legal necessity, and is vitiated by fraud and collusion.2. The defence was, that the alienation was valid and binding; that there was no fraud or collusion in the matter, and that the defendant No. 1 had no concern with the purchase, which was really made by the defendant No. 2 on her own behalf.3. The first Court found that the alienation in question was made without any legal necessity, that the defendant No. 3 had obtained letters of administration to the estate of her deceased husband and the District Judge's permission to sell the property now in suit, upon fraudulent misrepresentation of facts, and that the defendants Nos. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Pandit and ors. Vs. Madhusudan Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal574
Prinsep and Stevens, JJ.1. This is a case in which the petitioners have been convicted of a riot and hurt in connection with their attempt to assert and enforce a right to fish in a certain tank, in which they were opposed by the other co-sharers. The learned pleader for the petitioners maintained that inasmuch as they had a right to fish and are found to have a share in the tank, they were justified in proceeding even by force to enjoy that right, even if they apprehended resistance on the part of others, that is to say, others having a share in the same tank. As an authority for this, our attention was drawn to the case of Pachkauri v. Queen-Empress (1897) I.L.R., 24 Cal., 686. It is extremely difficult in cases of this description to adopt and apply a general proposition of law as applicable to the facts of different cases. Some of the observations made in that case may perhaps be applied to the facts of the present case, but even that seems doubtful. Our attention has also been dra...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chunder Dutta and ors. Vs. Mukhoda Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal734
Banerjee, J.1. The question raised in this appeal, which arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage, is, whether upon an ex parte decree made in a mortgage suit being set aside, and subsequently reaffirmed after trial, the mortgagor becomes entitled to redeem the property, not only as against the mortgagee, but also as against a third party who purchased it at a sale held in execution of the ex parte mortgage decree and confirmed whilst the ex-parte decree was still in force.2. The Court of Appeal below has answered this question in the negative, relying upon the cases of Rewa Mahton v. Ram Kishen Singh (1886) I.L.R., 14 Cal., 18: L.R., 13 I.A., 106; and Zain-ul-Abdin Khan v. Muhammad' Ashgar Ali Khan (1887) I.L.R., 10 All, 166: L.R., 15 I.A. 12.3. In second appeal it is contended on behalf of the defendant, mortgagor, that the decree of the Lower Appellate Court is wrong in law, and that the; cases relied upon in the judgment of the Court below, which are cases of sale in execution of...
Tag this Judgment!Chhatrapati Singh Vs. Gopi Chand Bothra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal750
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of two decrees obtained by one Rai Dhunput Singh Bahadoor against the present appellant in respect of certain putni rents. The application is dated the 3rd of December 1896.2. It appears that on the 27th of June 1893 Rai Dhunput Singh, who was the owner of Pergunnah Haveli within which the putni mehals are situated, sold his right and interest to one Mussammat Bhagwaubuti Chowdrani. On the 10th of July 1896, he obtained the decrees in question for the rents due from the appellant for a period prior to the sale; and on the 19th July 1896 he executed a trust deed in favour of one Gopi Chand Bothra and others by which he conveyed to them various properties, both moveable and immoveable, upon certain trusts. The two decrees against the appellant were included in the said trust deed.3. Dhunput Singh died in September 1896; and on the 3rd of December following, as already stated, the trustees applied for execution.4. On t...
Tag this Judgment!Nitayi Behari Saha Paramanick and ors. Vs. Hari Govinda Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal677
Hill, J.1. The question raised by this appeal is one of some importance. It is not, so far as I am aware, met precisely by any direct authority, but its solution depends, as it appears to me, on the application of principles which have been recognized in analogous cases.2. The facts are sufficiently simple. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are co-tenants of a 2 annas 13 gundas 1 cowri 1 krant share in a certain shikmi taluk, the name of the first defendant alone being registered in respect of the share in the zemindar's sheristha. The other shareholders in the taluk have opened separate accounts with the zemindar. The third and fourth defendants, who are fractional shareholders in the zemindari, sued the first defendant alone for the entire rent due in respect of the 2 annas 13 gundas 1 cowri 1 krant share of the taluk for the years 1298 and 1299, and obtained a decree in execution of which the share in question was brought to sale and purchased by the second defendant on the 11t...
Tag this Judgment!Abul Khair Vs. Meher Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal712
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. The Subordinate Judge has reversed the decree of the Munsif and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the sole ground that the plaintiff's name not having been registered as proprietor at the time when the suit was brought, although it was registered while the suit was pending, the plaintiff, under the provisions of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act and Section 60 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, could not maintain a suit for arrears of rent. In so deciding the Subordinate Judge has cited the decisions in the cases of Dhoronidhur Sen v. Wajidunnissa (1888) I.L.R., 16 Cal., 708, and Surja Kant Acharya Bahadur v. Hemant Kumari Devi (1889) I.L.R., 16 Cal., 706. He considered that the decision in the case of Dhoronidhur Sen v. Wajidunnissa, so far from being overruled, was considered to be correct by a majority of the Judges of the Full Bench in the case of Alimuddin Khan v. Hira Lall Sen (1895) I.L.R., 23 Cal., 87.2. We are unable to adopt this view. In the Pull ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »