Kolkata Court May 1900 Judgments
Mohabut Singh and anr. Vs. Umahil Fatima and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal66
Ghose, J.1. This was an action brought to enforce a mortgage security. The defendant No. 15 alleged that the incumbrance which the plaintiff's sought to enforce in this action had been annulled by proceedings taken under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act,2. The real question that has been argued before us on appeal is whether the application which has to be made to the Collector under that section was made to the proper officer, and whether the notice was duly issued by the officer by whom it has to be issued under the provisions of the section,3. In the Court of first instance a question arose as to whether, the defendant No. 5 was out of time in the proceedings which he took to annul the incumbrance, and it was found as a fact by the Munsif that neither the defendant No. 4, who is the assignor, nor the defendant No. 5, who is his assignee, was served with notice of the incumbrance until served with the summons in the suit which has given rise to this appeal, and that therefore th...
Tag this Judgment!ishan Chandra Dey Vs. Gonesh Chandra Parsi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal139
Maclean, C.J.1. I think it sufficient to say that I concur in the view expressed in the case of Keshav Pandurang v. Vinayak Hari, (1893) I.L.R. 18 Bom. 355 and also in the two cases of Jethabhai Dayalji v. Girdhar (1894) I.L.R. 20 Bom. 158 and Desai Lallu-bhai Jethabhai v. Mundas Kuberdas (1895) I.L.R. 20 Bom. 390, a view which seems to be in consonance with that taken of The Himalaya Bank v. The Simla Bank (1885) I. L.R. 8 All. 23 and the case of Jagrup Rai v. Radhey Singh (1890) I.L.R. 13 All. 288. I am not disposed to follow the case of Baijnath v. Lachman Das (1885) I.L.R. 7 All. 888, which is not consistent with that taken in the other cases to which I have referred. The appeal therefore fails and must be dismissed with costs.Banebjee, J.2. I am of the same opinion. The learned Vakil for the appellant contends that any view opposed to his contention would necessitate the reading of some qualifying words into Section 50 of the Registration Act after the words, 'not being a decree o...
Tag this Judgment!MohiuddIn Ahmad Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal674
Ghose, J.1. The question which arises in this case is whether the Sajjadanashin of the Sasseram Khankah is assessable with income-tax under the provisions of Section 4 of Act II of 1886, in respect of such moneys as he draws from the properties appertaining to the Khankah for the purpose of his own maintenance and the maintenance of his family.2. Section 4 of the Act prescribes: 'Subject to the exceptions mentioned in the next following section, there shall be paid, in the year beginning with the 1st day of April 1886, and in each subsequent year, to the credit of the Government of India, or as the Governor-General in Council directs, in respect of the sources of income specified in the first column of the second schedule to this Act, a tax at the rate specified in that behalf in the second column of that schedule.' The word 'income' has been defined in an earlier section, Section 3, and it means income and profits accruing and arising or received in British India, and includes in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Srish Chunder Bose Vs. Nachim Kazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal827
Francis William Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The question submitted is, 'whether a suit brought by an assignee of arrears of rent after they fell due, for recovery of the amount due is a suit for rent, and therefore excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes, or whether it should be treated as an ordinary suit for money, and therefore not so excepted.'2. The question is a short one, and, but for the view entertained by my learned colleague Mr. Justice Banerjee, I should have thought not a very intricate one.3. The question after all is only as to the Court in which the suit is to be brought, and in the interest of litigants it is desirable that, as regards this Province at any rate, the matter should, as far as possible, be definitely settled. It is clear that the assignor could not have sued for these arrears of rent, in the Small Cause Court, and I fail to understand, upon what principle the assignee, who stands in the assignor's shoes, should be entitled, or bound to do ...
Tag this Judgment!Woomesh Chandra Maitra Vs. Barada Das Maitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal17
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs under the following circumstances:--The defendant holds a putni under the plaintiffs, who sue him for arrears of rent upon the basis of a kabulyat, at the rate of Rs. 190-6-6 including Iswar Bhawanipur's mamuli, Rs. 3-7-6, and claim payment by ten instalments. The defendant alleges that the kabulyat is not binding upon him, and pleads that the mamuli included in the claim as rent is an illegal cess. It appears that previously there was another suit between the parties in which the plaintiffs had claimed rent and had obtained a decree for Rs. 190-6-6 payable in four instalments. In that suit the kabulyat was declared to be not binding on the defendant.2. The Munsif in the present case held that the question relating to the kabulyat and the instalments was res judicata, and overruling the objection of the defendant that the mamuli was an illegal abwab, made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 190-6-6 payable by...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Kuldip NaraIn and ors. Vs. Lala Makhan Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal774
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. It has been found, though the finding has been impeached before us by the learned Vakil for the defendant-appellant as based upon no evidence, that the plaintiffs are raiyats and the defendant an under-raiyat. The plaintiffs gave a notice to the defendant to quit, but this notice seems to have been sent to him by post, and was not served upon him in accordance with Rule 8, chap. I of the Rules framed by the Government of Bengal under Section 189, of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The notice must therefore be taken to be bad in law: See Tara Das Malakar v. Ram Doyal Malakar (1897) 2 C.W.N., 125. It follows, therefore that the suit, as based upon such a notice, must fail, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain ejectment in this case.2. In this view of the matter, we refrain from expressing any opinion upon the question whether the plaintiffs have rightly been found to be raiyats and the defendant an under-raiyat.3. The appeal wi...
Tag this Judgment!Raj NaraIn Das Vs. Shamananda Das Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1900
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1362
Handley, J.1. No one appearing on the other side to show cause and there being in my opinion good grounds for a review in this case the rule is made absolute. The case will accordingly be restored to the file and reheard....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdur Rahman and Keramat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal839
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The question submitted for our consideration upon this reference is 'whether's. 537 of the Code of Criminal(sic) can be applied to any case in which the trial has been held on charges (sic) together, contrary to Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.' From the statements on the reference, it would appear that the petitioner Abdur Rahman, was tried on a charge (1) of extortion committed on 1st February 1898, and upon two other charges, whilst the other petitioner Keramat was tried only upon the two latter charges. The reference states--and this has not been contested--that so far as the first-mentioned offence, it could not properly be tried in the same trial (Section 234, Code of Criminal Procedure) with the other offences, as they were not committed within one year and the petitioners contend that the trial was illegal and void by reason of the addition of the charge for the offence committed on 1st February 1898, and that this illegality c...
Tag this Judgment!Laldhari Singh and ors. Vs. Sukdeo NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal892
Prinsep, J.1. The matter before us relates to a rule in which we have to consider an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. By the order passed under Section 145(1) proceedings were taken in regard to a dispute as to the 'actual possession.' of certain specified land between Laldhari Singh and Sukhdeo Narain Singh through their respective tenants, the Magistrate being satisfied that this dispute was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. This Magistrate was afterwards succeeded by another Magistrate in the sub-division of Jahanabad, and he by an order of the 12th August purporting to be also under sub-sec, (1) and reciting the same information declared the dispute to be also between other persons. Together with Laldhari Singh, the Magistrate joined the minor brothers of Laldhari of whom Laldhari was the guardian, and, together with Sukhdeo Narain Singh he added Prayag Narain Singh. The Magistrate also declared that the dispute between these part...
Tag this Judgment!Golapdy Sheikh and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal979
Prinsep, J.1. In this case it appears that, on an investigation made by the police in respect of what may be termed looting a house, one person who could alone be apprehended, Jagira, was sent in for trial and the case was made over to a Subordinate Magistrate who discharged Jagira. The others who were charged in that case could not be arrested and were, therefore, not placed on their trial. On a representation to the District Magistrate by the District Superintendent of Police, he has thought proper to issue warrants against these other persons in order that they might also be tried. The jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to make this order has been questioned on the rule granted by us. Cognizance was taken of the offence on the police report and the case was made over to a Subordinate Magistrate, and so long as the case connected with that offence remained with the Subordinate Magistrate no other Magistrate was competent to deal with it; the ease has never been withdrawn by the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »