Kolkata Court July 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.
Sanoman Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Autar Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal167
Ghose and Stevens, JJ.1. The learned Vakil for the appellant has very fairly stated his case; but it appears to us that there is really no ground for our interference with the judgment of the Court below.2. The only question of law that arises in this appeal is as regards the binding effect of the order of the Revenue Officer made under Section 107 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of the rent of what is described in the proceedings in this case as the mourasi jote. The Revenue Officer, under the provisions of that section, determined that the jama payable for the said jote was Rs. 29-1 anna. This determination, according to Section 107, has the force and effect of a decree of a Civil Court in a suit between the parties. That section, as also Section 108 of the Act, lay down how a decision of a Revenue Officer may be questioned or set aside; and when the decision of the Revenue Officer with which we are concerned was not set aside, by appeal or otherwise, it must be taken that his d...
Rakhal Raja Vs. Khirode Pershad Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal175
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. In this case the Magistrate sentenced the petitioners to three months' imprisonment. On appeal, this sentence was altered by the Sessions Judge to one month's imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20, or in default of payment to 15 days' rigorous imprisonment.2. A rule was granted by us to consider whether this alteration of sentence amounted to an enhancement of the sentence such as was contrary to the terms of Section 423, Code of Criminal Procedure. Our attention has been drawn to the case of Queen-Empress v. Chagan Jagannath (1898) I.L.R., 23 Bom., 439, as well as to a case in the Allahabad High Court, Queen-Empress v. Ishri (1894) I.L.R., 17 All., 67, referred to in that judgment. We find it impossible to lay down any general rule to determine what is or is not, an enhancement of sentence, when only a portion of a sentence is altered to a punishment of a lesser degree of severity as in the case before us. Mr. Boy, who appears in support of the rule, contends that...
Madhusudan Das and anr. Vs. Gobinda Pria Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal34
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. The respondent purchased two jotes at sales in execution of two decrees which she had obtained against Ram Kamal Das for the rent due in respect of them. After obtaining the sale certificates she applied for khas possession as against Ram Kamal's sons who, we must take it, were put on the record as representatives of their deceased father. The sons resisted the application alleging that they had purchased the whole of one and half of the other jote from their father prior to the rent suits, that the respondent had recognised them as tenants, and that they were not bound by the decree to which they were not parties. In support of their contentions they put in the kabalas by which they had purchased the jotes and some other documentary evidence. Both Courts considered that the questions raised could only be decided in a regular suit to be brought by one or other of the parties, and that they could not be decided under Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code....
Gopeswar Mullick and ors. Vs. Biraj Mohini Dassi Widow of Tarini Chara ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal202
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of the 24-Parganas in a suit in which the plaintiffs claim khas possession of some two or three bighas of land situated just outside the limits of the Town of Calcutta, but within its municipal boundaries as defined by Bengal Act II of 1888.2. The defence set up in the written statement was a varied one; that the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the plaintiffs and the defendant; that the land was held in mokurrari and mourasi right; that the defendant had acquired a title by adverse possession; that the plaintiffs were barred by the statute of limitation, and that, if the defendant were a tenant under the plaintiffs, she was an occupancy raiyat. Of all these varied contentions, the last only has been argued before us. The first Court held that the defendant was an occupancy raiyat and was not liable to be ejected; the Lower Appellate Court reversed this decision; hence th...
Ram Parshad Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Bara Banki
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal118
Richard Couch, J.1. The suit, which is the subject of this appeal, was brought on the 26th August 1887 by Munshi Hanuman Parshad, manager and superintendent of the 'Kayestha Patshala,' Allahabad, against Rani Chabraj Kunwar, widow of the late Raja Mahpal Singh and Raja Pirthi Pal Singh, his son, a minor, under the guardianship of his mother the Rani, on a mortgage-bond, dated 4th September 1880, for Rs. 7,000, said therein to have been borrowed from Hanuman Parshad, manager of the Patshala, out of the Patshala's funds, and to be repaid with interest to the manager for the time being of the Patshala The sum claimed to be due for principal and interest was Rs. 15,141-2-10. After the filing of the plaint the estate of the minor came under the management of the Court of Wards and the appellant was made a defendant in the suit. Previously to this suit being brought another suit between the same parties had, on the 13th April 1887, been brought on a similar bond, dated the 20th January 1881,...
Monmohini Debi and anr. and Vs. R. Watson and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal336
Richard Couch, J.1. These are consolidated appeals in suits brought by the several appellants and others against the respondents to recover possession of ands in the district of Moorshedabad known as mouzah Diar Shibnagar. The ouzah consisted of six touzis or revenue-paying estates in shares numbered 5, 268, 269, 270, 271, and 1580, the last number not being included in these Its. The lands in dispute were a large number of ascertained chucks or (sic) marcated plots of land belonging to these several estates and shown on the map made on a preliminary survey of the mouzah by the Government for revenue purposes, those which belonged to the estate No. 270 being coloured red, the estate No. 271 blue, and to Nos. 405, 268 and 269 uncoloured, and the chucks being held by the owners of the estate in fractional shares as between themselves. In 1853 the river Pudma which adjoined the mouzah began to diluviate its lands, and at some time between that date and 1869 the whole of the lands in dispu...
Dwarka Dass Agurwallah Vs. Girish Chunder Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal766
Stanley, J.1. The question is not one as to the greater convenience of the English practice or the practice in this country. According to the English practice the money remains in Court till the decision of the suit. That was possibly a wise alteration of the previous practice. The practice is not so here. By the provisions of the Code a defendant is allowed to pay money into Court, and after such payment he is not liable to pay any interest in respect of the amount so paid. The plaintiff is penalised if he does not take the money out. The Code provides that no interest is to be paid to the plaintiff after he receives notice of the payment into Court, and directs that the money shall be paid to the plaintiff 'unless the Court otherwise directs.' I think the Court has a discretion to refuse to allow the money to be paid out, but that discretion is to be exercised reasonably. In a case where the money sued for is due on a promissory note it would be unreasonable in the absence of special...
Azgar Ali Mia Vs. Aman Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal185
Macpherson and Wilkins, JJ.1. The plaintiff respondent brought this suit for foreclosure of a mortgage by way of conditional sale, and for possession of the property mortgaged, alleging that he had been put into possession by the mortgagor, and that he had been dispossessed some two or three years before the suit. The Subordinate Judge held that the claim for foreclosure was barred by the law of limitation, but that the respondent was entitled to possession as mortgagee of the property from which he had been ejected. This appeal is preferred by' one of the defendants against the order giving the respondent possession of the mortgaged property.2. It seems to us that the decision of the Subordinate Judge is right. The property was conveyed to the respondent for a consideration of 80 rupees, and under the deed he was entitled to possess and enjoy the property. There was this condition, however, that, if the consideration money was repaid within eight years, the deed would be returned and ...
Fink Vs. Maharaj Bahadoor Sing and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal772
Stanley, J.1. In this matter a summons was taken out by the plaintiff for an order for payment to him by the Accountant General of the balance which shall remain of the sum of Rs. 3,458-7-5 representing monies paid into Court by the Receiver appointed at the instance of the plaintiff over certain immoveable property of the defendant after payment of costs, or in the alternative that it be referred to the Registrar to report who are the persons if any entitled to participate in the fund besides the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff obtained a decree again st the defendant on the 30th of April, 1898 for the sum of Rs. 3,394-4-0 and costs, and on the 8th of August 1898 he obtained an order of attachment of, amongst other, certain property of the defendant in Khungraputty Street and in Cross Street in Calcutta.3. By an order of the 26th of August 1898 made in this action Mr. Belchambers was appointed Receiver to collect from the tenants the rents of the property above referred to, and was directe...
Ghassee Jemadar Vs. NassiruddIn Mistry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal769
Stanley, J.1. In this case there was an agreement in writing between the defendant and his attorney, whereby the attorney agreed to accept Rs. 150 for his personal services in addition to costs out-of-pocket and Counsel's fees, but in the event of the client being successful the attorney was to refund the Rs. 150, and in that event to recover full costs from the plaintiff. Some misunderstanding appears to have arisen between the defendant and his attorney, and the defendant in consequence desires to change his attorney, and thereby preclude him from carrying on the case to a termination with the chance of success and profit therefrom to the attorney. It is said by Mr. Bonnaud that the attorney agreed to conduct the case for Rs. 150, and has been paid that sum, and he is not entitled to have his costs taxed in the usual way. I am of opinion that on the terms of the agreement the attorney is entitled, upon his ceasing at the instance of the defendant to act as attorney for him, to have h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »