Kolkata Court December 1900 Judgments
Chooney Money Dassee Vs. Ram Kinkur Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal155
Maclean, C.J.1. The original plaintiff in this suit was one Sreemutty Denomoney Dassee, a Hindu widow, and on the 16th September 1898, she brought an action against the defendant Chooney Money Dassee (the present appellant) alleging in effect that the defendant had wrongfully trespassed and encroached upon the plaintiff's property, and asking for a declaration that the defendant had no right to do what she was doing, for an injunction, damages, and costs.2. The plaintiff's case was briefly as follows: Her husband died many years ago leaving herself and two sons, Hari Das and Bam Kinkur, surviving him, and leaving as part of his estate a certain house in Calcutta known as No. 6, Gobinda Chunder Sen's Lane. This house was eventually partitioned, and on the 16th June 1900 one-third of the house in question was allotted to the plaintiff to be held and enjoyed by her as a Hindu mother during the term of her natural life. By divers conveyances and acts in the law the defendant ultimately bec...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Nritya Gopal Adhikary ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal487
1. The plaintiffs, who are villagers cultivating lands on the banks of the river Banka sue the Secretary of State for India in Council in consequence of proceedings purporting to have been taken under the Bengal Irrigation Act (Bengal Act III of 1876), by which they have been prevented from erecting a bund on that river, so as to obtain water for irrigating their lands.2. They ask for an order declaring that the defendant has no right under that Act to interfere with them, or to act in any manner, and that they are entitled by prescriptive right to erect this bandh. The Munsif has found all the issues in favour of plaintiffs, and has given the plaintiffs a decree and the appeal by the defendant has been dismissed.3. In second appeal the defendant raises only the question whether he is not protected by the terms of the Bengal Act of 1876. Section 1 of that Act declares that the ' Act shall take effect in those districts in the provinces subject to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, to w...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Dassi and ors. Vs. Dwarka Nath Santra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal308
1. The real question that has been raised on behalf of the appellants in this case is, whether the notice which was served upon the appellants in Bhadro 1302, calling upon them to vacate the land in suit in Baisak 1303, is a good notice, having regard to the provisions of Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants have been found to be under-raiyats to whom the provisions of that section are applicable. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that, inasmuch as they were required to vacate the land in the early part of the year, and not at the end of the year, it is a bad notice, and therefore the suit based upon such a notice is not maintainable. Section 49 provides:An under-raiyat shall not be liable to be ejected by his landlord, except (a) on the expiration of a term of a written lease; (b) when holding otherwise than under a written lease, at the end of the agricultural year next following the year in which a notice to quit is served upon him by his landlord.2. What...
Tag this Judgment!H. Mathewson Vs. Gobardhan Tribedi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal492
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by a decree-holder against his judgment-debtor and a person to whom the judgment-debtor had granted an ijara of the property, which he (the decree-holder) had caused to be attached in execution of his decree. The attachment is said to have taken place on the 29th September 1891, and the ijara was executed on the 7th November 1896.2. The facts, as set out in the plaint, are that, after the property was attached at the instance of the decree-holder, a Receiver was appointed by the Court to take charge thereof, and to make over the proceeds of the property to the plaintiffs and the other attaching creditors; and that subsequently, while the Receiver was in possession of the property, the defendant No. 1, the ijaradar, presented before the Receiver the ijara pattah and asked that the rent payable by him under the ijara might be received. But what took place upon that application being made is not stated. It is, however, alleged that this ijara...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empbess Vs. Dolegobind Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal211
Maclean, C.J.1. This in an application by the accused to have the order of commitment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Mr. Pearson, discharged, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to make the commitment, as a previous order of discharge had not been set aside by any competent authority. The facts are as follows On the 23rd of July last the accused was arrested on the charge of having stolen a registered letter from the Post Office, and on the 25th July was brought up before a Bench of Presidency Magitrates, charged with offences under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. He was discharged on the same day, the Bench considering that the evidence was insufficient to warrant 'a conviction,' by which I presume they meant a commitment. On the 6th September the accused was re-arrested on substantially the same charge, and on the 17th October he was committed for trial upon further and fresh evidence --a very salient feature in the ...
Tag this Judgment!J. Lazarus Vs. Krishna Chunder De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal393
1. In this appeal, which arises out of a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Court of Appeal below is right in holding that upon the plaintiff's own showing the suit was barred by limitation as being governed by Article 64 and not by Article 60 of the 2nd Schedule of the Limitation Act. We are of opinion that this question must be answered in the negative. The facts stated in the plaint, which bear upon the question of limitation, are those to be found in the 2nd paragraph of that document, and, as we understand the plaint, they are shortly these: That there was a registered agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant whereby it was agreed that the plaintiff was to use a godown belonging to the defendant for the purpose of storing the jute purchased by him, the defendant being promised a certain commission in return; and that there was in addition to this agreement in writing registered, a verbal agreement to...
Tag this Judgment!Outhwaite Vs. Outhwaite and Diaz
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal84
Harington, J.1. I will make the order....
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madhub Mitter Vs. Preonath Mandal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal303
1. In this appeal, which arises out of a suit for declaration of title to, and recovery of possession of, certain immoveable property, the question raised on behalf of the appellant, the defendant No. 2, is whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that that defendant was bound by the award of the arbitrators to whom the case was referred, although he was not a party to the reference, by reason of acquiescence.2. It is admitted that the defendant No. 2 did not join in the reference to the arbitration that was made in the cases. The ground upon which the learned Judge below has held him bound by the award is thus stated in his judgment: 'The conduct of the defendant No. 2, when his advantage was being debated, warrants the conclusion that he consented, as did his sub-tenant, to the arbitration proceedings.'Then after considering certain cases presently to be noticed, the learned Judge observes: ' But this defendant was fully aware of the proceedings, as notice was given to ...
Tag this Judgment!Khankar Abdur Rahman Vs. Ali Hafez and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal256
1. In this appeal, which arises out of a suit for establishment of the plaintiffs' right and for confirmation of their possession in respect of certain immoveable property, two questions have been raised by the learned Vakil for the defendant-appellant, first, whether the Court of Appeal below was right in admitting extrinsic evidence to show that a certain conveyance was really a mortgage by way of conditional sale, and second, whether the Court of Appeal below was right in holding that there could be a valid surrender of an occupancy holding without a written document.2. Upon the first question this is how the matter stands. The extrinsic evidence that was admitted was evidence of the acts and conduct of the parties, that is, evidence of the repayment of the money, the return of the deed, and the exercise of acts of possession by the vendor, and not evidence of any oral agreements or statements by the parties, and it was not disputed in the argument before us that that was the case. ...
Tag this Judgment!Youd Vs. Youd and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal221
Harington, J.1. I find thatthere has been: (1) Adultery of respondent with Metcalfe in October 1899.(2) Condonment of that adultery by the Petitioner in December 1899.(3) Adultery with Meade in January 1900.2. Mr. Knight--I ask for a decree nisi against both co-respondents. [Harington, J.--The adultery of Metcalfe was condoned.] Yes, but revived by subsequent adultery with Meade. [Harington, J.--That is misconduct with a different person; how can that affect the petitioner's rights against Metcalfe?] Any subsequent marital misconduct revives the right, The misconduct need not be ejusdem generis, nor quo ad hunc. The principle as laid down by Lord Stowell in the case of D'Aguilar v. D'Aguilar (1794) 1 Hagg. 773, 786 is perfectly general in terms; 'misconduct' not 'the misconduct.' This was adopted by the Judge ordinary in Curtis v. Curtis (1858) 1 S. & T. 192; Ridgway v. Ridgway (1881)29 W.R. 612; Newsane v. Newsane (1871) L.R. 2P. 306, 311; Bernstein v. Bernstein (1893) L.R. 1893, 292;...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »