Kolkata Court June 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.
Krishna Chandra Nath Vs. Sadagar Sircar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal937
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. The respondent in each of these cases claimed a plot of land which formerly formed a part of the holding of persons called Naths who had a right of occupancy in it. The holding appertained to an estate, of which there were five proprietors having different shares. The ijaradar of a 13-anna odd gunda share belonging to some of those proprietors got a decree against the Naths for the rent due on account of his share, and in execution of that decree the holding was sold on the 28th January 1889 (16th Magh 1295) and purchased, as the Subordinate Judge finds, by the respondent. The respondent said he got into possession of these plots and held possession as a recognised tenant till he was dispossessed by the appellant and others in one case in Bysack 1297, and in the other in Bhadra 1298. The suits were instituted on the 18th Bhadra 1302, but none of the landlords of the holding are parties to them. The appellants claimed to he in possession under settlements o...
Dukhada Sundari Dasi Vs. Srimonto Joardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal950
Stevens, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff alleged that the property in question, which had originally belonged to her father and had been sold in execution of a decree against him, had been purchased by him at the auction sale in the name of one Sridhur Mondul and had afterwards been mortgaged by him in the name of Sridhur Mondul to the defendant Srimonto Joardar. As against that defendant, she sought to recover possession of the properties in question on the allegation that the mortgage debt had been more than satisfied out of their profits. She also joined the heirs of Sridhur Mondul as defendants in order to establish as against them the benami character of the auction purchase made ostensibly by Sridhur, and consequently her own right as heiress to her father to the extent of one half of his estate.2. One of the grounds of defence was that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court ...
Ram NaraIn Tewari and ors. Vs. Shew Bhunjan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal197
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.,1. In this case I have the misfortune to differ from Mr. Justice Stevens, who has held that, having regard to the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure this suit is not maintainable.2. Shortly the facts are these. There was a rent suit brought against the present plaintiff, and an ex parte decree was obtained against him on the 16th January 1894, and under that ex parte decree the property was put up for sale, and sold on the 10th June 1894, and the purchaser, who is the respondent on the present appeal, was put into possession on the 25th December in the same year. Subsequently, the present plaintiff, who was the defendant or one of the defendants in the former suit (our information as to the former suit is not very definite), applied to set aside the ex parte decree, not upon the ground of fraud, but upon the ground of non-service of the summons upon him, and that ex parte decree was set aside. We are not in possession of the actu...
Kailash Chunder Sen and anr. Vs. Ram Lall Mittra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal869
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. The High Court regret to have to call the attention of the Sessions Judge to the manner in which this reference has been made in disregard of the orders contained in Circular, July 22nd, 1863, General Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court (Appellate Side, Criminal, p. 124).2. When the person called upon under Section 133 to show cause why an obstruction should not be removed from a public way denies that it is a public way, it is for the Magistrate to determine whether this is a bond fide objection, and he cannot in spite of the objection (unless he determines that it is not bond fide) refer the matter to a jury. The jury is not competent to decide whether the way obstructed is or is not a public way. They can merely find whether the Magistrate's order is reasonable and proper, as originally made, when the matter is properly submitted to them. The Magistrate, moreover, is mistaken in thinking that a jury can decide such a matter without taking evidence and...
Queen-empress Vs. Jadub Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal295
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. Three persons--Jadub Das, Mangal Das, and Rai Charan Das--were tried in the Sessions Court of Jessore on a charge of murder by causing the death of one Jogeswar Das by strangling him, and in the Sessions Court a further charge of abetment under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code was added by the Sessions Judge against Jadub Das. The jury returned an unanimous 298] verdict of acquittal and the Sessions Judge has referred the case to us under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect only of Jadub Das. He has accepted the verdict of acquittal as regards the other two accused.2. Dwarika Das is the father of the deceased Jogeswar, and he states that his son left his house at about two dandas of the evening of the 1st January, and has never since been seen alive. He made many inquiries regarding him during that night and the following day, but could learn nothing until, on the morning of the 3rd January, he was told by one Biswanath that his son's bo...
Mohesh Chunder Addy Vs. Manick Lall Addy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal252
Stanley, J.1. I am quite averse to granting commissions for the examination of witnesses, not merely on account of the expense, but also of their unsatisfactoriness. The laws of evidence are often not adhered to, and the advantage of viva voce examination before the Court is lost. At the same time the Legislature has thought fit to determine that purdahnashin ladies shall not be obliged to appear in public. The question is, is this lady to be examined under commission. On one occasion she did appear in Court in a palki. For so doing she was outcasted. There is evidence that on another occasion mentioned in the affidavits she appeared in public. Undoubtedly on that occasion she did not observe the rules of the purdah, but the statement that she appeared in public is exaggerated. 'Whether she took a seat beside Mr. Rose as alleged is not very clear. She was however covered with a chudder, which shows that she was not openly defying the rules and customs so strictly observed by Hindu ladi...
Stevenson Vs. Stevenson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal764
Stanley, J.1. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner states that he does not desire to cross-examine the respondent. The respondent has filed an affidavit in which he states that he is without any means whatever. The application must consequently be dismissed. I reserve the question of costs. The petitioner to have liberty, if such liberty be required, to renew the application at any future time....
Amrita Lal Ghose Vs. Shrish Chunder Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal944
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. On the preliminary question whether an appeal lies, I see no reason for confining the last sentence of Section 58 of the Companies Act, 1882, to the case suggested by respondent's Counsel, namely, the case in which an issue has been directed upon a question of title. The words apply to the whole section. The case of In the matter of the petition of Luchmee Chand (1882) I.L.R., 8 Cal., 317, was a case of an appeal, and it was not suggested that an appeal did not lie. I admit that is not an authority against the present respondent, as the point was not raised. In my opinion the appeal lies.2. Upon the merits, I think that, without deciding upon this appeal any question of title one way or the other, the learned Judge in the Court below, in the exercise of his judicial discretion, was amply justified in refusing the application. He could only make the order asked for, if satisfied of the justice of the case,' and, I think, there was quite sufficient up...
E. Christien Vs. P.J. Delanney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal931
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. This suit was brought to enforce a judgment which the appellant had obtained against the respondent in the French Court at Chandernagore. The District Judge, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge, dismissed the suit on the ground that the Chandernagore Court had no jurisdiction over the respondent, who is a resident of the Tipperah district.2. The appellant and her aunt Madame Montie resided in Chandernagore, which is a French territory. Madame Montie was entitled under the will of the respondent's father to a monthly allowance of Its. 100, and at the time of her death Rs. 2,500 was due to her on that account. The appellant, claiming to be entitled to that sum under her aunt's will, brought an action against the respondent in the Chandernagore Court and obtained the judgment which it is sought to enforce in the present suit. The respondent was served with a summons, but did not appear in the Chandernagore Court and the judgment was given against ...
Nistarini Dassi Vs. Nundo Lall Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal891
Stanley J.1. A number of preliminary objections to the maintenance of this suit have been raised by the defendant Nundo Lall Bose. The first and most serious of them is that this Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the decree of the Alipore Court. The plaintiff in her statement of claim alleges that the joint property of her late husband Mohendra Nath Bose, and of the first and second defendants, which was undivided joint family property, was partitioned by arbitrators under an agreement to which her consent was fraudulently obtained, and that by the fraud of the same defendants, a decree upon the award was subsequently passed by the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs. In her claim, which is for the administration of the estate of the late Mohendra Nath Bose, the plaintiff seeks among other things a declaration that the award and the decree made thereon are fraudulent and void, as against her, and in no way binding upon her, and so far as they purport in any way to deal with the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »