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.
Nando Lal Basak Vs. N.N. Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal852
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. This rule was granted for the purpose of considering the legality of an order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the 20th April 1899, by which he refused, on the application of the petitioner before us, to accord sanction for the prosecution of Mr. N.N. Mitter, an Honorary Magistrate, under Sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.2. If appears from the affidavit and petition put in by the petitioner in support of the rule that he is a pleader of the Judge's Court of the 24-Pergunnahs, and that on the 7th April last he appeared on behalf of the prosecution in the case of Chumroo Singh v. Beni Madhub Singh, which was brought on for trial on that date before a Bench of Honorary Magistrates, of which Mr. N.N. Mitter was Chairman. When the examination of the complainant and of the witnesses for the prosecution who were present in Court had been concluded, Mr. Mitter intimated to the petitioner that he and his colleagues were agreed in thinking that th...
Deno Nath Batabyal Vs. Nuffer Chunder Nundy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal778
Sale, J.1. The plaintiff in this case seeks to enforce a mortgage against the defendant Nuffer Chunder Nundy executed by him in favour of the plaintiff on the 24th of November 1896, to secure a sum of Rs. 1,000 with interest, which sum the plaintiff alleges he advanced to the mortgagor as a loan. The mortgaged property consisted of three tiled huts situate in Calcutta, which the mortgagor either acquired by purchase or caused to be erected on land rented by him.2. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants Adhur Chunder Sett and Hridoy Nath Sett, in the month of September 1897, caused the said properties to be attached in execution of a money decree obtained by them against the mortgagor, and that he (the plaintiff) as mortgagee of the properties filed a claim in the Court of Small Causes, which was, on the 30th of November 1897, disallowed.3. The plaintiff accordingly submits that the Sett defendants, the attaching creditors, are necessary parties to this suit, and he says they...
Sheo Nath Saran Vs. Sukh Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal229
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a bond executed by the defendant No. 1 and the father of the minor defendant No. 2. The defence was simply one of payment. The guardian of the minor defendant No. 2, having regard to the provisions of Section 9 of the Indian Oaths Act of 1873, stated that, if the plaintiff should swear in accordance with a particular form of oath whether he had or had not received the money said to have been paid, he would abide by the result. Accordingly, the plaintiff did take the form of oath required, and deposed that no payment had been made, and that the whole of the money was due to him. The Court of First Instance, thereupon, gave a decree to the plaintiff, and that decree has been affirmed in appeal by the District Judge.2. The only point raised before us in this second appeal is that, under Section 462 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was not open to the guardian of the minor defendant, without the leave of the Court, to enter i...
Nistarini Dassee Vs. Nundo Lall Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal591
Stanley, J.1. In my opinion, having regard to the language of Section 389 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff is entitled to refer to the evidence as a matter of record. I shall follow the decision in Dwarkanath Butt v. Gunga Dayi (1872) 8 B.L.R., Ap., 102.2. Attorney for the Plaintiff: Babu Romesh Chunder Basu.3. Attorney for the Defendant Nundo Lall Bose: Babu Hirendra Nath Dutt.4. Attorney for the Defendant Pasupaty Nath Bose: Messrs. G.G. Chunder Co....
Haridas Acharjia Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Baroda Kishore Acharjia Chowdhr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal38
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. This appeal raises, amongst other questions, the question of the meaning of the word 'deht' in Section 266 of the Civil Procedure Code, which describes the property liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree.2. It appears that one Bishan Chund Dudhuria in 1883 obtained a decree against the second defendant, who is the adoptive mother of the first defendant, and that this decree was purchased by the plaintiffs' father. In 1885 the first defendant executed a deed by which he bound himself to pay to the second defendant a maintenance allowance of 100 rupees per month during the time of her life, and he secured the payment of that sum by the mortgage of certain properties. On 5th August 1887 the plaintiffs, in execution of the decree purchased by their father, obtained a prohibitory order upon the first defendant directing him not to pay half the amount of the maintenance allowance to the second defendant. It will be necessary hereafter; to refer m...
Lala Ojha Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal863
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. The appellant was sued by Sajeewan Ojha in the Munsif's Court at Buxar for possession of a strip of land. The suit was what is known as a boundary suit, as their holdings adjoined and the appellant Lala Ojha is said to have encroached on the lands of Sajeewan. At the trial of that suit, Sajeewan produced a copy of a plaint of a suit instituted four years previously in 1892 by Lala Ojha regarding the same land so as to show that he did not then claim the land in suit. Lala Ojha's pleader disputed the correctness of this copy and asked the Munsif to send for the original and he produced another copy of the plaint given to him with his brief by Lala Ojha, purporting to show that in the former suit his client claimed these very lands as indicated by the boundary stated in the words: We Khoridan darakhtan muddai. The plaint was accordingly sent for, and it was found that these words had been interpolated. The Munsif accordingly directed Lala Ojha to be prosecuted. He...
Kuloda Prosad Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Jageshar Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal194
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. The main contention raised in this appeal is that, having regard to the provisions of Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, the charge created in favour of the defendant under the compromise decree in 1886 could not affect the interest of the plaintiffs, because they (the plaintiffs) were persons who took the property without notice of the right of maintenance in the defendant, the widow. It appears to us, however, that Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application to a case like this, where there has been a decree between the widow on the one hand, and the plaintiffs' vendors on the other a decree by which certain immoveable property was charged with the maintenance of the widow. The predecessor of the plaintiffs subsequently took a mortgage of the property from the defendant, against whom the said decree was passed; and therefore they are bound, in the same manner as their mortgagor was bound, by it. Then again the plaintiffs could hardl...
Upendra Chandra Singh Vs. Rachhea Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal239
Rampini and Handley, JJ.1. The plaintiff sues the defendant for the rent of certain ferry ghats. The plaintiff is proprietor of a 24 annas share of the taluq Gangapur, in which the ghats are situated. The defendant admits that he took a lease of the 12 annas share of these ghats from the plaintiff's co-sharer Krishto Kamini Dassi, and contends that he and the plaintiff's servants used to collect the ferry tolls in the proportion of 12 1/2 and 3 1/2 annas. The Subordinate Judge has, however, found that the defendant collected the whole 16 annas of the ferry tolls during the period in suit. He further finds that the defendant entered into no contract with the plaintiff for the collection of these tolls and the payment to him of rent, but nevertheless holds that he has made himself the plaintiff's tenant in respect of these ghats by use and occupation, and has accordingly given the plaintiff a decree for the rent sued for.2. The defendant appeals, and on his behalf it is urged that the ru...
Raj NaraIn Das and ors. Vs. Shama Nando Das Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal845
Wilkins and Handley, JJ.1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, claim to be the proprietors, under a purchase made by their ancestor on the 16th September 1842, of 30 mans of land in mouza Dagrajit, Patna; of this area 15 mans 11 gunts 4 biswas are bahali (or confirmed) lakhiraj, and the defendants, in spite of the opposition of the plaintiffs, succeeded in getting their names registered in respect thereof in the Collector's books; the remaining portion is baziafti (or resumed) lakhiraj, and in respect of this the plaintiffs' own names are registered as the proprietors in possession. The plaintiffs bring this suit with the object of obtaining a declaration of their title whether by purchase or by long adverse possession to the bahali lands.2. The defendants contest the claim; and the nature of their case may be gathered from the issues framed, which were as follows:1. Is the suit barred by limitation2. Whether the kobala (of l6th September 1842) propounded by the plaintiff...
Digambar Mahto Vs. Jhari Mahto and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal761
Rampini and Handley, JJ.1. This is an application against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Manbhum, dated the 9th December 1897, The suit was one for the ejectment of korfa raiyats, who held at a yearly rent of Rs. 5-6 annas 10 gundas and the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit, on the ground that; the notice to quit served upon the korfa raiyats was insufficient, being one of about two months.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that in this case the defendants were entitled to six months notice expiring at the end of the year of the tenancy before they could be ejected from their holding, and in support of this view he relies on the case of Kishori Mohun Roy Chowdhry v. Nund Kumar Ghosal (1897) I.L.R., 24 Cal., 720.2. The learned pleader for the appellant has, however pointed out to us that the case referred to us no authority for the decision at which the Subordinate Judge has arrived. The present case comes from Monbhum, where the Chowdhry v. Nund Kumar Gh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »