Kolkata Court May 1899 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hem Chandra Chowdhry Vs. Kali Prasanna Bhaduri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal832
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. Pergunnah Pakheria Jainsahi originally formed an entire estate, but has now by partition become four estates, one of which represents a 10 annas share and the others each a 2 annas share of the original estate. Subordinate to the original estate there was an ancient tenure called Madarjani, the rent of which was allotted proportionately to each of the four estates, the land remaining undivided. This has now become two tenures, one representing a 13 annas 15 gundas share and the other a 2 annas 5 gundas share of the original tenure. The plaintiff as proprietor of estates Nos. 4806 and 5513, each of which represents a two annas share of the Pergunnah, brought suits No. 29 of 1890 and No. 7 of 1891 to enhance the rent payable to him for his four annas share, and these suits, which were tried together and disposed of in one judgment, have given rise to four appeals, of which Nos. 391 and 392 of 1896 relate to suit No. 27, and Nos. 45 and 46 of 1897 to suit No....
W.B. Colville and ors. Vs. Kristo Kishore Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal746
Ghose and Wilkins, JJ.1. This rule was issued upon the Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show use why his order discharging the accused should not be set aside in order it may be considered whether this Court has not, under Section 15 of the after Act, power to order a further inquiry or otherwise deal with the after as it may appear proper.' As we understand this rule, it was granted or a double purpose, first, for the purpose of determining whether the order of discharge made by the Presidency Magistrate should not be set aside, and secondly, that it may be considered at the same time whether this Court has not, under Section 15 of the Charter Act, power to order a further inquiry into the matter. So far as the first mentioned purpose is concerned, it seems to us, upon examining the judgment of the Presidency Magistrate, and after hearing Mr. Garth in support of the rule, nobody appearing on the other side to show cause, that the Presidency Magistrate has not dealt with the matter...
Mohanund Mondul Vs. Nafur Mondul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal820
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The point we have to decide upon this appeal is a short one, and not in my opinion a very difficult one.2. The suit is one to set aside the sale of a certain property effected under the following circumstances: The sale was effected by the grandmother of the plaintiff, who was then a minor, and it is the minor, now of age, who is seeking to set the transaction aside. The grandmother has not been found by the Lower Appellate Court to have been the duly appointed guardian of the infant, though the Munsif found that she was, and, for the purpose of this decision, therefore, I will take it that she was only the de facto manager of the minor's property, and that, as de facto manager of that property, she sold the property in dispute, in order to pay off a debt secured by mortgage over other parts of the minor's property, upon which mortgage a very high rate of interest was running.3. The lower Court, upon the authority of the Privy Council case of Hunoom...
Krishna Chandra Sen and ors. Vs. Sushila Soondury Dassee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal615
Hill and Rampim, JJ.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum, dated the 10th December 1897.2. Two grounds of appeal have been urged before us: (1) that the sum of Rs. 4 per annum, which the Subordinate Judge has held to be an abwab and disallowed, is not an abwab; and (2) that even if it is an abwab, as the plaintiffs are patnidars and the defendants dur-patnidars, the plaintiffs are, under Section 179 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, entitled to recover the amount.3. On the first point, we think we must affirm the finding of the Subordinate Judge. The annual payment of Rs. 4 is, according to the defendants' kabuliyat, not part of the rent. It is payable in lieu of certain quantities of jack fruit, bamboos and fish, which the defendants were to present annually to the plaintiffs, and is stipulated for in a perfectly distinct clause from that in which the payment of the rent is contracted for. Further, the rent is payable quarterly. The quantities of produce, ...
Narohary Jana Vs. Hari Charan Pramanick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal556
Hill and Rampini, JJ.1. This is a second appeal against an order of the Special Judge of Midnapore, dated the 9th August 1897, holding that no appeal lies to him from an order of a Settlement Officer, finding that the standard of measurement to be used in measuring the lands of a village, named Joyram Chuck, is a pole of 7 feet 9 inches. The appellant, who is the landlord of the village, contended that the standard of measurement is a pole of 7 feet 5 1/2 inches.2. It appears to us (1) that no second appeal lies to us, and (2) that the decision of the Special Judge is right and that no appeal lay to him.3. We think no second appeal lies to us because the decision of the Special Judge is not a decision in a case under Section 106 of the former chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which was in force when the order of the Special Judge was passed. The dispute between the parties was not a dispute as to the correctness of an entry in the record of rights for the following reasons: (1) ther...
Prosunno Coomar Roy Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal792
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought against the Secretary of State for India in Council by the plaintiff, appellant, to establish his title to certain lands, and to obtain certain declarations, the most important of which are that the 3aid lands are included in plaintiff's taluk Shermast Khan, and that the Government has no right to resume any lands of the said taluk, or to assess any rent on the same, otherwise than under the terms of a certain kabuliat of the 9th of November 1836.2. The material allegations upon which the plaintiff bases his right to the reliefs claimed are, that taluk Shermast Khan is the purchased ancestral property of the plaintiff; that the taluk has been in existence from before the Decennial Settlement; and in 1162 Maghi, that is 1800, a jummabundi was made by which 41 odd drones of land of the said taluk were assessed at Rs. 15-14-16 gandas per drone and a jumma of 659-6-2 pies was fixed: that in 1197 Maghi, that is 18...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›