Kolkata Court August 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.
Ashutosh Chuckerbutti and ors. Vs. Basanta Kumari Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal67
Prinsep, J.1. In the lease under which the defendants held certain lands from plaintiffs, they agree to pay a certain amount of their rent to third persons. They have failed to do so. Hence the suit now before us on a reference from the Division Court before which the second appeal came on for hearing. Objection was taken before that Division Court that this is a suit for damages for a sum less than 500 rupees, and that consequently a second appeal is barred by Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, the defendants claimed the right of second appeal on the ground that this was a suit for arrears of rent. The Divisional Court has referred this case to a Full Bench in consequence of the cases of Rutnessur Biswas v. Hurish Chunder Bose (1888) I.L.R., 11 Cal, 221, and Mohabut Ali v. Mahomed Faizullah (1898) 2 C.W.N., 455, which, in the opinion of the learned Judges, were in conflict on this point, and we are asked to find 'whether the money for which this suit has be...
Mankura Pasi and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal139
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. The appellants on these two sets of appeals have all been convicted at the same trial under Section 401 of the Penal Code of belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing thefts. The evidence shows that they alt came from the same neighbourhood in Oudh, and that they are in many respects associated together. The question, however, raised is whether the evidence proves the particular offence that their association was for the purpose of habitually committing thefts. The circumstances which have led to this case are remarkable.2. There was a big religious gathering or mela at Gaya early in September last, and the Police were on the look-out to protect the public against thefts committed when crowds were assembled. Lachman Pasi was caught in the act of picking a pocket, and his companion was pursued towards a certain house. That house was surrounded by the police and searched, and in it the appellants were found, including Thaku...
Har Shankar Prasad Singh and anr. Vs. Show Gobind Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal966
Ghose and Stevens, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of certain shares in a 2-anna 8-pie patti in Mehal Shava, which formally belonged to one Jagdamba Prasad Singh and Ambika Prasad Singh. These parsons and some other persons, namely, Nand Kisore Prasad Singh and Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh owned between themselves the said 2-anna 8-pie share, which is described to be a joint kalam, there having been a separate account opened with the Collector as regards the shares of the other shareholders in the said Mehal Shava.2. It appears that a mortgage deed was executed by Jagdamba Prasad Singh, who was a member of a joint undivided family, with his brother Ambika Prasad Singh in favour of one Harbans Sahai. This individual obtained a decree against both Jagdamba Prasad Singh and Ambika Prasad Singh, on the 31st August 1889, upon the said mortgage. In execution of this decree the interest of Jagdamba and Ambika in Mehal Shava was sold up and purchased by Har Shankar Pr...
Loke Nath Pal and ors. Vs. Khairunnessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal276
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhoom, dated the 25th of August 1897, decreeing specific performance of a certain contract.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs contracted with two putnidars, defendants Nos. 6 and 11, for the lease of a tank and certain land, and that these defendants agreed to give them this lease on behalf of themselves and their co-sharers. Subsequently the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, well knowing of the arrangement which had been made with the plaintiffs, succeeded in inducing certain of the other defendants to give them a lease of the same property after paying them a certain sum for salami and a certain sum as a bribe.3. Now the Subordinate Judge has given the plaintiffs a decree for specific performance of the lease granted to them, with a declaration that the lease granted to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 is null and void as against the plaintiffs.4. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have appealed, and on t...
In Re: Sarat Kumar Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1899
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal973
Stanley, J.1. In this matter it has been clearly established that the insolvent procured two loans amounting together to Rs. 9,000 upon the false representation that the property which formed the security for the loans was free from all incumbrances. The property, or a portion of the property, had been mortgaged the year previously to secure a sum of Rs. 4,000. It is apprehended by the puisne mortgagee that the mortgaged property will not realise sufficient to satisfy the three mortgages, and he opposes the discharge of the insolvent upon the ground of the false and fraudulent representation made to him and on the faith of which he advanced his money. No other creditor is opposing the discharge of the insolvent. I regard the conduct of the insolvent as very reprehensible and I cannot overlook it.2. Under the circumstances I grant a personal discharge as regards all the creditors save and except creditor No. 2, and as regards creditor No. 2 I shall apply the provisions of Section 51 of ...
Gerindra Kumar Das Gupta and ors. Vs. Rajeswari Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1899
Reported in: (1900)27TTJ(Cal)5
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, dated the 25th March 1898, refusing to amend a probate granted by his predecessor on the 18th June 1897.2. It appears that the applicant to this Court applied for probate to the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, on the 25th January 1897, and probate was granted accordingly. But, in issuing the probate, a printed form was made use of according to which the probate purports to have been granted under Section 254 of Act X of 1865, as amended by Sections 8 and 9 of Act VI of 1881 and Section 4 of Act VI of 1889, These words should apparently have been struck out from the probate, inasmuch as the applicant did not apply for probate under these Acts or sections.3. The testator was a Hindu, and his application must be understood to have been made under Section 76 of Act V of 1881, as amended by Section 12 of Act VI of 1889, and the Judicial Commissioner's order must be understood as ...
Mohabir Das (Minor) Through His Guardian and Next Friend Sarju Das Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal279
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, dated the 14th April 1899, directing the appointment of a Receiver for the custody and preservation of certain property the subject of a suit now pending in his Court.2. The suit relates to the mohuntship of the Asthal of Suja alias Ramnugger, which became vacant by the death of the former mohunt, Jugarnath Das, who expired on the 8th of September last. Of the two claimants, one is Mohabir Das, the plaintiff, who alleges that he was appointed chela of the deceased mohunt on the 20th January 1898, and was installed as mohunt on the 2nd of September, about six days before the death of the old mohunt.3. The defendant is Sia Ram Das; and on his behalf it is alleged that he was made chela on the 16th May 1897, and that he was appointed mohunt on the 12th day after the death of Jugarnath Dass by a punchayet consisting of certain neighbouring mohunts and zamindars. The defendant is now in possessi...
Kartick Nath Pandey and anr. Vs. Juggernath Ram Marwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal285
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagulpore, dated the 2nd of June 1898.2. The order of the Subordinate Judge was passed on an application for execution of a decree. The decree in question was dated the 26th February 1880; and it was a consent decree passed in a suit brought upon a mortgage. The decree directs that the decretal money be recovered by sale, in the first instance, of the mortgaged properties which have not been exempted, and afterwards from the persons and other properties of the defendants.3. The judgment-debtors in this case have contended that the decree is barred by limitation.4. The Subordinate Judge has overruled this plea, and has ordered that execution should proceed.5. Before us two pleas have been urged, namely, first, that the present application is barred under the three years' rule laid down in Article 179 of the Limitation Act; and, secondly, that it is barred by the 12 years' rule in Section 230 of ...
Mahomed Rojabi Vs. Umrao Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1899
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal205
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J1. I am doubtful whether the Lower Appellate Court ought to have allowed the point now argued before us to have been raised. It was never raised in the pleadings, and never raised in the Court of First Instance. The case raised in the Court of First Instance was that the defendants never executed the ijara in question: they fought that out and they were beaten. It is not very easy to say whether this particular lease is or is not within the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is found by the Court below that the lands lie within the municipal area of Dacca, but there is nothing to show that the land was let out as a holding for agricultural or horticultural purposes, though there appears to have been some evidence as to some of the plots being used for growing vegetables and sone sonda. I think we must take it, upon the findings, that this land was not used for agricultural or horticultural purposes, and, that being so, I see no reason to dissent f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›