Kolkata Court July 1899 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Makimuddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal133
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. The Magistrate in a summary trial has convicted the petitioner of theft and has sentenced him to 'three months' rigorous imprisonment, in lieu to undergo seven years detention in a Reformatory.'2. The Sessions Judge has referred this case to this Court for revision because there has been no inquiry or evidence taken to ascertain the petitioner's age, and, therefore, no proper finding that he is a youthful offender; and he has also observed that the case should have been considered under Section 31 of the Reformatory Schools Act (VIII of 1897) rather than as a tit case for an order for detention in a Reformatory School.3. In explanation the Magistrate has stated on a look of the boy I was satisfied that his age was about 10 years so I did not make any further inquiry.4. Section 16 of the Act declares that no Court shall alter or reverse in appeal or revision any order passed with respect to the age of the youthful offender or the substitution of an order for dete...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn and anr. Vs. Dwarka Nath Khettry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal264
Sale, J.1. This is an application by a purchaser of immoveable property at a Sheriff's sale for an order either that the sale may be set aside, or that he be allowed to retain out of the balance of purchase money a sum of Rs. 1,628 as compensation for an alleged deficiency in area of the land sold to him. The sale proclamation signed by the Sheriff, and issued by him under the provisions of Section 287 of the Civil Procedure Code, contained the statement that the property to be sold was 'No. 56, Lower Chitpore Road, being rent-free land measuring about 1 cottah 15 chittacks and 5 square feet with a three-storeyed house and premises erected thereon.'2. Section 287 provides, amongst other things, that the sale proclamation shall specify as fairly and accurately as possible the property to be sold, any incumbrance to which the property is liable, the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered, and 'every other thing which the Court considers material for the purchaser to know in...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Matter of Purna Chunder Pal Mukhtar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal1023
Ghose, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpore under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners' Act (XVIII of 1879 as amended by Act XI of 1896), recommending that a certain mukhtar, Purna Chunder Pal, who had been practising as a mukhtar in the Criminal Courts, should be dismissed. The grounds for this recommendation are that the mukhtar was dismissed in 1891 from the office of Sub-Inspector of Police, which he then held, for gross misconduct; and that in 1893, he procured a certificate of good moral character from a pleader, Babu Mon Mohun Ghose, by concealing his previous history, and by means of that certificate, thus improperly obtained, he gained admission to the examination for mukhtars. The Sessions Judge Considers that this is 'any other reasonable cause' within the meaning of Section 13 Clause (f) of the Legal Practitioners' Act, for which the mukhtar is liable to be dismissed.2. The questions which arise upon this reference are: (1) whether the reason assign...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Singh Vs. Ram Chandra Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal242
Banerjee and Stevens, JJ.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Raja Ranjit Singh of Nashipur, for declaration of his title to certain immoveable properties and for recovery of possession of the same as shebait of the idol Sri Sri Lakshmi Narain Deb Thakur, or if the properties are found not to be debutter properties, then in the alternative in his own right as the heir of Kumar Ram Chand and his widow Rani Anandamoyi. The material allegations upon which the claim is based are, that the properties in suit which belonged to Kumar Ram Chand and were held by Rani Jorao Kumari, a female member of his family, for her maintenance, were dedicated by him by a deed dated the 4th of Kartick 1266, to the god Sri Sri Lakshmi Narain; that on the death of Jorao Kumari and of Kumar Ram Chand shortly after, Rani Anandamoyi, his widow, held possession of the properties as a shebait; that Rani Anandamoyi in 1288, as shebait, borrowed certain sums of money from defendants 3 and...
Tag this Judgment!Mauladan Vs. Rughunandan Pershad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1899
Reported in: (1900)27TTJ(Cal)7
Ghose and Stevens, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, sought for a declaration that a deed of sale executed and registered by her in favour of the defendant was void and ineffectual. The plaintiff's case seems to have been that the defendant, after the execution of the deed of sale in question, desired that it should be registered, and promised that he would forthwith pay the consideration-money, and accordingly the plaintiff presented the deed for registration and bad it registered, and called upon the defendant to pay the consideration-money. The defendant, however, promised to pay it in a short time, but subsequently declined to make the payment. Thereupon the plaintiff was obliged to issue a notice upon him either to pay the consideration-money or to treat the transaction as cancelled, but the defendant refused to receive the notice.2. The case of the other side was that the whole of the consideration-money, with the excep...
Tag this Judgment!Salimun Vs. Abdul Karim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal190
Ghose and Stevens, JJ.1. The only question with which we are concerned in this appeal is whether the mortgage security upon which the suit of the plaintiff was founded was executed by the defendant No. 2 Sheikh Abdul Karim, the appellant before us, as provided by law.2. Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that 'where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards (and in this case the consideration is above one hundred rupees), a mortgage can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses;' and so on. It appears upon the statement of facts, made to us by the learned Vakil for the appellant (the respondent not being represented before us), that though there are several witnesses to the mortgage deed in question, only two of them have been examined, namely, Vilayat Hossain and Furhat Hossain. So far as the first named witness is concerned, it would appear from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge t...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Nath Chatterjee Vs. Amarendra Nath Chatterjee and anr. Minors by ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1899
Reported in: (1900)27TTJ(Cal)169
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 6th of May 1898, granting letters of administration, with a copy of the will annexed, to the petitioner.2. The case relates to the will of one Jadab Chandra Chatterjee who died in April 1894, and he is said to have executed the will on the 22nd of November 1883. The will, now in dispute, is therefore about fifteen years old. It is admitted that the will was written by Jadab Chandra Chatterjee; but, for the defendants, it is urged that it is not a valid will under Section 50 of the Indian Succession Act.3. The District Judge has found that the will was duly executed by the testator. He finds further that the signature on the right hand corner of the will was not there when the witness signed; but that it was duly executed for two reasons,--first, that the will was written by the testator himself; that the signature at the beginning of the will is in the testator's handwriting, and i...
Tag this Judgment!Balbhaddar Singh Vs. Sheo NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal344
Hobhouse, J.1. The property in dispute is the taluk of Gaura, to which the Courts in Oudh have held the respondent to be entitled. The last holder was a lady named Achal Kunwar, widow of Bhopal Singh, who died in December 1858. She was recognised by the Government, and her title was established by sanad granted in July 1862. The taluk was entered in Lists I and II, as devolving on a single heir, and not in List III. She died in November 1887. The Collector placed the respondent in possession as being either heir or devisee; upon which the present suit was brought. It lies, therefore, upon the plaintiff, now appellant, to show that he has the better title.2. He has attempted to do that in more than one way. He alleges that Achal Kunwar adopted his father Sheopal Singh; and from a document which will be examined presently it may be conjectured that she did at one time contemplate such an adoption; but no sufficient evidence was brought by the plaintiff to show that it was effected and bo...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Singh Vs. Bhogeraj Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal25
Stevens, J.1. The question in dispute in the two cases out of which these appeals arise is as to whether the plots of land with which they are respectively concerned appertained to the putti of the plaintiff, or to that of the defendants. It is not necessary to enter into the history of this litigation, which has been pending since the year 1890. Suffice it to say that when the cases came for the last time before the Subordinate Judge of Tirhut on appeal, that officer held that they were barred by limitation, and accordingly dismissed them.2. The view held by the Court of First Instance was that in both cases the land in dispute was of such a character that neither party had been in regular possession of it. The learned Munsif says: 'The disputed lands in suit No. 147 are admittedly putti (waste) lands over which neither party cared to exercise acts of possession till shortly before the institution of the suits, and the attempt at definite and lasting possession on both sides gave rise...
Tag this Judgment!Rajib Panda Vs. Lakhan Sendh Mahapatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal11
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Stevens.2. That learned Judge has stated with accuracy the nature of the respective cases of the plaintiff and of the defendant, and the contentions of the parties, and I do not think any useful object will be attained by my recapitulating them.3. The real question we have to decide is, whether the defendant is entitled to show in this suit, that the decree obtained in the previous suit between the same parties was obtained by fraud, or whether or not, so long as that decree stands unreversed, it must be taken to be binding upon him.4. I concur with the learned Judge in the Court below in thinking that the question turns upon the construction of Section 44 of the Evidence Act, though, so far as I can gather from his judgment, he scarcely appears to have discussed the actual language of the section.5. There is but little authority upon the point in the reported decisions of the Courts of this country, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »