Kolkata Court March 1900 Judgments
Sonai Mugh Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal654
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. By Act XXII of 1860, Section 1, the tracts of country described in the schedule to that Act and known as the Chittagong Hill Tracts were removed from the jurisdiction of the existing Civil and Criminal Court. Consequently the Court of Sudder Dewany Adawalut had no jurisdiction to hear appeals in respect of sentences passed on conviction of offences committed within those districts. Jurisdiction has not since that date been given either to the Sudder Court or to the High Court. There is, therefore, no jurisdiction in the High Court to hear this appeal. It is accordingly rejected....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: in the Goods of Bhuggobutty Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal927
Ameer Ali, J.1. On the 8th of May 1899 Prosonnomoyi Dasi applied for probate in respect of the will of a Hindu lady name Bhuggobutty, There were various proceedings anterior to that application, but it is not necessary to refer to them for the purposes of the present judgment It is enough to state that upon Prosonnomoyi applying, as aforesaid, two persons named Adhore Chunder Dutt and Gopal Chunder Dutt entered a caveator against the grant of probate. 2. The case was, accordingly, set down as a contentious cause and came on for hearing on the 8th of February last. The trial lasted over a considerable number of days, and the propounder's witnesses were cross-examined at enormous length, no detail was left unquestioned, and every single matter open to attack or criticism was subjected to a searching cross-examination. 3. On the 23rd of February Akhoy Kumar Mitter, attorney for the caveator, Gopal Chunder Dutt (his brother Adhore having died previously), was examined, and his cross-examin...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Pershad Panday and anr. Vs. G. L. Garth
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal63
Prinsep, J.1. The Magistrate had before him a complaint of defamation as well as of dishonestly using a forged document under Section 471, Indian. Penal Code. The alleged forgery consisted in affixing a false signature to a letter on -which the charge of defamation proceeded. At the trial, the evidence was, no doubt, principally directed to the charge under Section 471, and it appears that, at the close of the trial, the Magistrate suddenly turned round and convicted the accused of defamation, having no charge before him of that offence. On appeal, the Sessions Judge very properly found fault with such a proceeding. He seems, however, to have followed the Magistrate into an error regarding the evidence necessary to prove the offence of defamation, for he points out that there is no evidence to show that the complainant has been injuriously affected by such alleged defamation. That, however, is not necessary to constitute an offence of defamation as defined in Section 499, Indian Penal ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhamoni Debi Vs. the Collector of Khulna and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal943
Robertson, J.1. The respondents are in possession of the land in dispute by virtue of a Magistrate's order granted in August 1885. The onus is, therefore, on the appellant who claims the land to make out that she has the better right.2. In considering the question thus raised it is well to have in mind the nature of the disputed land. Its area is about 1,400 bighas, but it is a significant fact that the most various estimates on this subject have been made during the period in dispute, the reason being that very few people had occasion to be there or were interested in its size. The decree to which this is the case may be gathered from two facts. It is clearly ascertained that in 1865 there were no human beings living on any part of the ground, and only one-twentieth of the whole area was susceptible of cultivation. At the time of this action there was only one small group of dwellings. The ground, generally speaking, is jungle; but there has been in some parts, more or less of intermi...
Tag this Judgment!Grish Chunder Lahiri Vs. Shoshi Shikhareswar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal951
Hobhouse, J.1. The defendants in this case are grandsons of one Bireswar Roy who died many years ago. The respondent is the senior of them and the only one who had attained majority when this suit was instituted. It is he who has conducted the defence throughout. The plaintiff, now appellant, is also a grandson of Bireswar in this sense, that Baroda, Bireswar's daughter, adopted him. Bireswar made several grants of property to Baroda which the plaintiff claimed after her death either as heir or as devisee. Possession of them was taken by or on behalf of the defendants, and in the year 1882 the plaintiff sued to recover them. The question to be decided in this appeal arose in the execution of the decree then obtained by the plaintiff.2. The decree is dated 23rd December 1883. It declares the plaintiff's right to the villages or estates of which he has been dispossessed, and it proceeds thus: 'And that he do get from the defendants khas possession of the same and mesne profits for the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Fatimatulnissa Begum and ors. Vs. Sundar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal1004
Hobhouse, J.1. The plaintiffs below, now appellants, are the representatives in estate of one Nurud Hossein Khan, who on the 17th of October 1788 effected a usufructuary mortgage of the property now in dispute along; with other property to secure the sum of Rs. 105,783 due on bonds to three, several persons. One of the mortgagees was named Sadhu Ram to whom one. of the bonds was owing. In some wary not now apparent a settlement was; made in or about the year 1806 by virtue of which the other creditors were, satisfied and 14 annas of the property released. A two anna share remained as a security to Sadhu Ram, but on the terms of the original mortgage adjusted to the division of interest. It will be convenient to speak of the parties and their successors respectively as mortgagors and mortgagees. The terms of the mortgage are as follows:Until the whole and entire sum the principal aforementioned and interest thereon, whatever that may be by account, is not repaid to the aforenamed person...
Tag this Judgment!Mokhoda Dassee Vs. Nundo Lall Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal555
Ameer Ali, J.1. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Dharmo Dass, who died in the year 1852 or 1853. Besides the plaintiff, who was an infant at the time of his death, he left him surviving a widow named Bidhumukhi, and two brothers, Radhanath and Jatadhari. Subsequently upon a partition one-third of the joint, estate was allotted to Bidhumukhi as the heiress of her husband. Jatadhari died, it appears, before Bidhumukhi. Bidhumukhi died on the 20th of October 1891, and under a decree in a suit brought by Radhanath Haldar against the plaintiff he obtained possession of Dharmo Das' share which had devolved upon Bidhumukhi. The decree contained a declaration that it was without prejudice to any rights the plaintiff had to maintenance. The plaintiff Mokhoda was married to a man named Digambur Dutt, son of Dino Nath Dutt. Digambur died in his father's lifetime. The plaintiff had by him several daughters, and a son Jogendra. Unfortunately for her that son died during the life time of her mot...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed HosseIn Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal692
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. On the 23rd of April 1899, the Assistant Magistrate of Purneah proceeded to search the house of the prisoner, who appears to be a man of position and means, and took with him two Superintendents of Police, several Inspectors of Police and a number of constables and chowkidars, the whole constituting, in point of numbers, a small army of about sixty men. Their object was to search for arms in the house of the prisoner. They reached his house at daybreak; they surrounded the house, went in, and at once arrested the prisoner and had him photographed. Some of the witnesses say--photographed with a constable holding him by the hand or arm--and then proceeded to search the house. The Police had no search-warrant, nor is there anything to show upon what charge the prisoner was arrested. The search lasted practically throughout the day, with the result that the stocks of two guns, some loaded and unloaded gun and revolver cartridges, a ramrod, a box of perc...
Tag this Judgment!Set Umedmal and anr. Vs. Srinath Ray and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal810
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the representatives of the judgment-debtors against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs, dated the 17th of April 1899, refusing to set aside the sale of certain property which had been sold under a decree, and which was purchased by the respondents, who were themselves the decree-holders, but who had liberty to bid.2. The facts may be shortly stated. The decree for sale was dated the 13th of February 1896, and was made in a suit to enforce an equitable mortgage. The property in due course of execution was ultimately sold, and, as I have already said, the decree-holders became the auction-purchasers. The sale was confirmed on the 22nd of February 1897. On the 8th of September 1898, the decree was at the instance of some of the defendants set aside under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 22nd of February 1899, the present application was made by the representatives of the judgment-debtor and...
Tag this Judgment!Amrita Lal Mitter Vs. Manick Lal Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal551
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is a suit for partition. The plaintiff is a purchaser from one of the sons of Chooni Lal Mullick, who died in 1892, leaving four sons, Manick Lal Mullick, Gopessur Mullick, Johur Lal Mullick and Amrita Lal Mullick and a widow Sreemutty Nitcomoni Dassee. He left a house No. 3/2, Gopal Chunder's Lane, the partition of which is sought in this suit, and it appears on the evidence that this is the only property he left. The share of Johur Lal Mullick his come to the plaintiff Amrito Lall Mitter by virtue of a sale under a mortgage decree. The sale 'certificate has been put in. The share of Gopessur has come into the hands of the Ghose defendants under a sale certificate, which also has been put in. The plaintiff seeks to have a partition of the property, and his contention is that he is entitled to a one-fourth share, in spite of the fact that the widow of Chooni Lall Mullick is alive, and is entitled under the law to a share of the ancestral property upon a partition o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »