Kolkata Court May 1899 Judgments
Tafazzul Ahmed Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal634
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. The petitioners have been convicted, one of them under Sections 353 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and the others of abetment of an offence under Section 353, that is, of assaulting or using criminal force to the complainant, a Nazir, in the execution of his duty as such, with the intention of preventing or deterring him from discharging his duty. The case for the prosecution is that the Nazir was executing a warrant for the attachment of certain property belonging to Tafazzul Ahmed in satisfaction of a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act for costs in certain proceedings. In the first instance, the attachment proceeded quietly, but, after a little while, a man who was the muktear of the debtor, appeared and required to see the warrant of attachment. He then declared that this warrant was an illegal warrant, which could not be properly executed, and he instigated the debtor and others forcibly to resist the execution. Thereupon the Nazir was assa...
Tag this Judgment!Charoobala Dabee Vs. Barendra Nath Mozumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal126
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. In this case the Presidency Magistrate discharged the accused, and a rule was granted to show cause why an order directing further inquiry should not be passed. When that rule was made, there was some uncertainty in regard to the powers of the High Court in this respect, because Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers this Court to make an order for further inquiry, is not made applicable to proceedings before a Presidency Magistrate. There was also another rule to the same purport, which had been granted by the same Bench, of which I was a member, and, under the terms of that rule, it was expressly stated that it would be considered whether this Court has not under Section 15 of the Charter Act powers to pass such an order. The rule in that case has been heard and dealt with by another Bench of this Court, who have held that such power is given to the High Court as a Court of Revision under Section 439 read with Sections 425 and 423. In ca...
Tag this Judgment!Banka Behary Dass Vs. Raj Kumar Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal231
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. The object of this suit is to obtain a declaration that the kobala of the 5th Assar 1296, executed by the appellant's father in favour of the respondent, is a benami and fictitious deed not affecting the appellant's right to the property which it purported to convey, and to get such further relief as the Court may think fit to give in confirmation of the appellant's title and possession. The plaint discloses that the deed in question was executed at the respondent's suggestion to secure the property against persons who had obtained decrees against the appellant's father, that it was a purely colourable transaction without consideration or any transfer of possession, and that the respondent was now fraudulently setting up a title to the property. The respondent put in a written statement, in which he claimed title to the property under the kobalas impugned by the appellant, alleging that there was a good and valid sale for consideration. Admittedly the deed...
Tag this Judgment!Fulkumari Dassi and ors. Vs. Jogendra Chunder Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal77
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is a suit for the partition of certain properties which are mentioned in the schedule to the plaint--properties which belonged to one Jagdis Chunder Sarkar, who died in the month of Joist 1293, leaving him surviving his minor sons, the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and his widow, the defendant No. 6 and the defendant No. 7, who was his own mother. No question arises in relation to any share of the latter in the property. The suit was instituted on the 27th of August 1895, and summonses were served upon the defendants on the 14th September in the same year. In the interval, on the 12th September, the defendant No. 1 had, for valuable consideration, transferred his share in one of the properties treating (subject to what I will say in a moment) that share as a one-sixth share, to the defendant No. 8, who was subsequently on the 5th December 1895 made a party to the suit.2. The real question in dispute is whether the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap NaraIn Mukhopadhya Vs. Surja NaraIn Mukhopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal955
Maclean, C.J.1. This case has been so fully argued that I do not think any useful object would be attained by our further considering the matter.2. This is a suit by one brother against another for recovery of Rs. 900, with interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 10 per cent., and the litigation arises under the following circumstances. The two brothers, the plaintiff and defendant in this suit, were co-defendants in another suit, in the Court of the 3rd Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, a suit brought by another brother to set aside a certain deed of partition, and in that suit the present plaintiff thought it advisable to engage the services of counsel, and in that view the present defendant concurred, and the following correspondence took place between the two brothers. On the 6th May 1893 the plaintiff wrote this letter to the defendant (omitting the formal parts): 'I have thought proper to engage a counsel in our suit No. 15 of 1892 in the Court of the 3rd Subordinate Judge of Hooghly. I ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip Singh Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal617
Hill and Rampini, JJ.1. In this suit the plaintiff alleges that he has purchased 6 1/4 bighas of an occupancy jote of 8 bighas belonging to Nanku Rai and others. He further pleads that he has been dispossessed by the defendants who are the landlords of the occupancy jote of 1 bigha 15 cottahs, and he sues them for possession.2. The Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff, as the transferee of a portion of an occupancy holding, has no title as against the defendants. The plaintiff now appeals, and on his behalf it has been contended that the plaintiff does not seek to be recognized as a tenant by the landlords, but merely prays to be restored to possession of the disputed land from which he has been wrongfully ejected.3. We think, however, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession on proof of mere wrongful dispossession. This is not a possessory suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. That being so, he must show some title to...
Tag this Judgment!W.R. Fink Vs. Buldeo Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal715
Stanley, J.1. The action was brought in this case by Mr. Fink as Receiver of the estate of Sewbux Sureka, deceased, against the two defendants carrying on business in co-partnership as merchants at Mandalay, Rangoon and Calcutta, and at the time the writ was issued, in Rangoon and Calcutta, under the name and style of Buldeo Dass Jowala Persaud, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,780-4-2 in respect of the rent of a house in Mandalay, and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 587-8, being the price of goods sold by the defendants for Sewbux Sureka and also for interest on these respective sums.2. Neither of the defendants has appeared to give evidence, but in their statement of defence they rely upon the Statute of Limitation, and they also say that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground which I shall presently refer to. The defendant Jowala Persaud, who is a son of the defendant Buldeo Dass, also alleges in his statement of defence that he is not and never was a part...
Tag this Judgment!Nil Kamal Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Jahnabi Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal846
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. The facts of this case are fully and clearly stated in the judgment appealed from and need not be repeated. The question argued before us is purely one of law.2. Shortly stated the case stands thus. In 1883 the appellants brought a suit against the respondent to recover certain land, including the plots A, B and C, which form part of the land now in dispute. They obtained a decree for some of the land exclusive of those plots in May 1884. They executed the decree, and in execution they took possession, with the aid of the Court, and without any objection on the part of the respondent, of the plots A, B and C, which, as already stated, were not part of the land decreed, and omitted to take possession of a part of the land which was decreed. About a year after that the respondent dispossessed them of the whole of the land, of which they had taken possession, and the present suit is brought by the appellants to recover it.3. The question is whether the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Dino Nath Chuckerbutty Vs. Pratap Chandra Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal30
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, respondent, to obtain a declaration that his maternal grandfather Goluck Nath Chuckerbutty was a shebait of the presiding deity Sri Sri Raj Rajeswar Deb of the tree of Iswar Raj Rajeswar standing on a certain piece of land, within boundaries stated in the plaint, and was in rightful enjoyment of a 1 anna 6 gundas 2 karas 2 krants share, that is a one-twelfth share of the profits pertaining to the said tree, for a further declaration that the plaintiff, as one of his daughter's sons, is entitled to a 13 gundas 1 kara and 1 krant, that is, a one-twenty-fourth share, and for a decree for possession of this last mentioned share, and for mesne profits for the three years immediately preceding the institution of the suit, the mesne profits being estimated at Rs. 50.2. The defendant No. 1 alone defended the suit, and his defence, so far as it is necessary to be considered for the purposes of this appeal, was that the su...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Chandra Mozumdar Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal786
Ghose and Wilkins, JJ.1. One Kunja Ganika filed a petition of complaint before the Magistrate, Mr. Balthazar, on the 14th September 1898. She was examined by the Magistrate, and deposed that the petitioner, who was then a Sub-Inspector of Police, flame to her house with a head constable and with other persons and enquired from her about a sari, in respect of which apparently a charge of theft had been edged by some other person. Her complaint was that the head constable himself introduced this sari into her house, and then pretended to have found there; and that she was then assaulted by the head constable and taken away the thana, whence she was ultimately allowed by the petitioner to depart without bail. Of the persons named in her vernacular petition of complaint accused, the present petitioner is not one; and the offences charged against hers were stated to be offences under Sections 352 and 354 of the Indian penal Code.2. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint to his Deputy Commis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »