Kolkata Court April 1900 Judgments
Madhu Lal Ahir Gayawal Vs. Sahai Pande Dhami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal532
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious, prosecution of the plaintiff in a criminal court for assault.2. The prosecution, upon the facts found by the Judge, seems to have been the outcome of a quarrel between the plaintiff and the defendant about certain offerings which a pilgrim to Gya had made. It would appear that in the course of that quarrel there was a disturbance, and it went so far as to compel the pilgrim and his party to retire from the place, leaving the plaintiff and the defendant, and their partisans to fight out the dispute. The defendant subsequently brought a complaint against the plaintiff for assault under Section 352 of the Penal Code. That complaint, however, was not substantiated, and it was accordingly dismissed. 3. The Court of First Instance found that there was criminal intimidation offered by the plaintiff to the defendant though there was no actual assault; and the Munsif, being of opinion that there was no justifiable cause for...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Dass Haldar and anr. Vs. Ananda Kumar Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal545
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by plaintiffs-respondents to recover, possession of a two-thirds share of certain rent-paying lands on the allegation that the plaintiffs were entitled to a one-third share by inheritance from the last recorded tenant, and to another one-third share by purchase from one of his heirs; that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to the remaining one-third share; that the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had been paying rent to the landlords and obtaining Separate rent receipts for some years; that subsequently, misunderstandings having arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, these latter colluded with the landlords, and caused a rent suit in respect of the entire Jama, to be brought against them and allowed a decree to pass, in execution of which the lands were sold and purchased by the defendant No. 1.2. The defendant No. 1 denied the plaintiffs' right, and contended that the rent suit was brough...
Tag this Judgment!Somesh Vs. Ram Krishna Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal705
Maclean, C.J.1. This appeal must be allowed. The question arises in a suit to enforce a mortgage. On the 26th of May 1898, a preliminary decree for foreclosure was made and we are told, for we have not seen the decree itself, that in terms it followed the provisions of Section 86 of the Transfer of Property Act. There was an appeal from that decree, but the decree was confirmed on the 13th August 1898. Nothing turns upon that appeal. On the 6th January 1899, upon an application made by the mortgagee, the following order was made, 'as the judgment-debtor has not paid the decretal amount within the time fixed, the order for sale of the mortgaged property is hereby made absolute.' In point of fact there had been no order for sale. There is nothing to show whether or not, on that application, the mortgagor asked the Court to postpone the day appointed for payment. 'Whether the mortgagor was served with this application, or what were the actual terms of the application, does not appear. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Joyanti Kumar Mookerjee Vs. J.B. Middleton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal785
Prinsep, J.1. The matter before us relates to an order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that Mr. Middleton was in actual possession of the colliery in dispute and should be so retained in possession until the matter in dispute had been settled by a competent Court.2. The objection taken on which the rule was granted was that the Magistrate did not find actual possession on the 29th of December, the date on which he passed an order under Section 145(1) for taking proceedings under that section, but that he found possession immediately before the 10th of November, the date of the order that he had passed between the parties under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. No doubt under Section 145 it is incumbent on a Magistrate ordinarily to find actual possession at the date of his passing an order under sub-sec. 1 and the proviso to sub-sec. 4 permits a Magistrate to consider previous possession, within two months t787] before such date under t...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Goswami and ors. Vs. Surnomoyi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal714
Maclean, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondents, to recover possession and mesne profits of certain rent-free lands. Their case is that, at a sale in execution of a decree against defendant No. 2, the former owner of those lands, the plaintiffs' father purchased the same for Rs. 3,850 on the 18th of February 1882, benami, in the name of defendant No. 3 (nothing for present purposes turns upon this); that the sale was confirmed on the 3rd of June following; that the plaintiffs' father having died shortly after, the plaintiffs obtained symbolical possession of those on the 15th of February 1883; that, subsequently, the defendant No. 2, and his wife the defendant No. 1 having entered into an agreement with the mother and guardian of the plaintiffs for the purchase of the lands, the plaintiffs relinquished possession in their favour, and that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 not having paid the consideration money in full, within the time stipulated, the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Chunder Kumar Mukerjee and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India i ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal698
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. I think, though with some little doubt, that there must be a remand in this case to the Lower Appellate Court, for that Court either to take the evidence itself, or send the case to the first Court to do so, for the determination of the question whether the Collector issued to the judgment-debtor a copy of the certificate upon which the sale was based and notice in Form IV in the Second Schedule annexed to Act VII (B.C.) of 1880, in other words, to ascertain and determine whether the provisions of Section 10 of the Act were strictly and properly complied with. I direct this remand, because in my opinion the finding of the Court below is not quite so explicit as it ought to be, though I should rather infer from his language that it was the Judge's intention to find that the notice had not been duly served in accordance with the provisions of Section 10. If the Court should find that the provisions of Section 10 have not been complied with, then in my...
Tag this Judgment!Sariatoolla Molla Vs. Raj Kumar Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal709
Maclean, C.J.1. The question we have to decide is a very short one, whether the application by the decree-holder of the 20th of July 1895 to be put into possession of the property which he had purchased under the execution proceedings is an application made in accordance with law to the proper Court to take some steps in aid of execution within the meaning of Sub-section 4 of Article 179 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act. If the question be answered in the affirmative the present application, of the 6th of August 1898, is admittedly not out of time, but, if it be answered in the negative, the present application is time barred.2. There is no authority, so far as we know, or so far as our attention has been directed, in the High Court of this province bearing directly upon the question. We have, it is true, been referred to various decisions, which lay down what does, and what does not in certain cases, and under the particular circumstances of those cases, constitute such an...
Tag this Judgment!Akhoy Kumar Chuckerbutty Vs. Jagat Chunder Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal925
Prinsep, J.1. The petitioner a Sub-Inspector of Police, has been convicted offences under Sections 342 and 384 of the Penal Code, that is of wrongfully confining Jagat Chunder Chuckerbutty, and of extorting from him Rs. 200 order a threat that he would not release Jagat Chunder Chuckerbutty unless the money were paid. It is found that this money was paid of account by Panchu Behari Saha, a money lender, who lent Jagat (sic) the money for this purpose. In hearing this appeal the Sessions'(sic) held that Panchu was not an accomplice, and he considered his evidence accordingly. A rule has been granted to consider this matter, because if (sic) is an accomplice, the evidence has not been properly considered on the a(sic) It is contended before us that the money was an illegal gratification(sic) therefore, the offence, if any, committed is under Section 213 of the Penal (sic) rather than extortion under Section 384. In one sense the offence may be so regard and in that case Panchu might be r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›