Kolkata Court May 1900 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.
Mahadeo Singh Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal921
Prinsep, J.1. After investigation, the police reported that the complaint of Mahadeo Singh, in respect of theft of certain documents, was false. On the 30th of April Mahadeo Singh appeared before the District Magistrate and made a complaint asking to have the matter fried. The District Magistrate deferred passing orders on the matter, until he was in receipt of the police report, and then, on the 6th May, he ordered the complainant to show cause within seven days why he should not be prosecuted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, and at the same time he made over the complaint of Mahadeo Singh to the Deputy Magistrate for judicial inquiry and report. On the 10th June, the Deputy Magistrate ordered notice to the complainant to appear before his Court with evidence on the 30th June, and after examining the complainant and his witnesses, he reported to the District Magistrate that the complaint was, in his opinion, false. The District Magistrate on this passed an order under Secti...
Jhumuck Jha Vs. Pathuk Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal798
Prinsep, J.1. These rules may be dealt with simultaneously as the matters involved are the same in all of them. It appears that some eight complaints were made to the Joint Magistrate of Durbhanga on behalf of the landlords against a large body of tenants charging them with offences, which, may be shortly described as criminal trespass or assault and possibly rioting.' After examination of the complainants the Magistrate in one, if not more of these cases ordered processes to issue, but immediately afterwards cancelled that order dealing with all these cases by another order referring them all to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate thereupon ordered a judicial inquiry to be held in each of these cases by Subordinate Magistrates deputed for that purpose. The question is whether the District Magistrate had any authority under the law to. pass any orders in these cases, seeing that the complaints were not made to him nor had the cases based on those complaints been withdrawn ...
Lala Surja Prosad and anr. Vs. Golab Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal724
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Mitakshara son, a minor, and his step-mother, the object of the suit being to have it declared that, in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by the creditor, the defendant, against the father, the shares of the plaintiffs in the ancestral property could not be made liable for the satisfaction of such decree. The Court below has dismissed the suit, and hence this appeal by the plaintiffs.2. It appears that Lala Chandra Koylas Saran alias Lachhanji, father of the minor plaintiff, and the husband of the other plaintiff, was the son of one Lalla Chamroo Lall. The latter died in the year 1875 or 1876. At that time Lachhanji was a minor, and his mother, Mussamut Tapeswar Koer, was appointed his guardian by an order of the District Judge of the 20th November 1876. In November 1890, Lachhanji arrived at majority, and took over charge of the estate left by his father. On the 12th of February 1891, he executed a mortgage bond in favour of Gola...
Golab Chand Vs. Surja Prasad and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal762
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Babu Golab Chand against Lalla Surja Narain, minor son of Chunder Kailash Saran alias Lachhanji, for enforcement of a mortgage bond, dated the 21st February 1891, executed by the said Lachhanji in favour of the plaintiff and his uncle Lal Chand for the sum of Rs. 5,000.2. We have noticed this mortgage bond in our judgment in appeal from Original Decree No. 397 of 1898 (see p. 724). The plaintiff's allegation is that Lalchand died without any male or female issue, and, while living jointly with him (the plaintiff), that he has succeeded to his interest in the mortgage bond in question under the Hindu law, and that he is entitled to enforce the mortgage security against the son of Lachhanji, the latter having died.3. The due date of this bond was the 19th February 1892, but the suit was not instituted until the 10th March 1898, that is to say, more than six years after that date. The plaintiff, however, claimed in the first insta...
Lal Mahmud Shaik Vs. Satcowri Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal164
Prinsep, J.1. The Magistrate passed an order under Section 250, Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the complainant to pay compensation in a certain sum, and he further directed that 'if the compensation is not realized within eight days, that is, by the 3rd March, the complainant shall undergo 30 days' simple imprisonment.' In consequence of the terms of this order, a rule has been granted to show cause why it should not be set aside as contrary to Section 250, Code of Criminal Procedure. In reply the District Magistrate has submitted that the order is legal and warranted by the terms of the section; and he contends that inasmuch as it is declared that 'compensation shall be recoverable as if it were a fine' it follows that as, on non-payment of a fine, imprisonment can be ordered in default, a similar order can be at once passed in respect of non-payment of compensation. The Magistrate, however, has misread the law. It only directs that 'compensation shall be recoverable as if it w...
Badhsingh Dudharia and ors. Vs. Bhekdhari Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal663
Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the District Judge of Patna, by which a suit instituted by the plaintiffs was remanded to the Court of First Instance for the purpose of an account being taken from the defendant.2. The facts out of which the suit arose are shortly these. The plaintiffs executed a ticca lease for nine years, commencing from the year 1293, and lending in the year 1301 I1. S., upon an annual rent of Rs. 1,400, Rs. 700 being deposited by the defendant, the lessee, by way of security in the hands If the lessors, with this stipulation, that the amount should be applied towards the rent of the last year of the lease, namely, 1301. 3. The plaintiffs case, as set out in the plaint, is that, after the expiration If the period for which the ticca was given, they called upon the defendant for an account of the collections of the annual rent and the payments made by him; but the defendant failed to comply with the requisition, and therefore they (the plaintiffs) ...
Amrito Lal Dutt Vs. Surnomoye Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal996
Hobhouse, J.1. This is a suit instituted before the High Court of Judicature in Calcutta in its original jurisdiction for administration of the estate of Hurridas Dutt, who died on the 30th October 1875, having executed a will on the same day. He had no son, but left a widow Surnomoye Dasi and two daughters who were all defendants below and now are respondents. The' plaintiff in the suit, now appellant, claims to be the son of the testator adopted by virtue of a power contained in his will; and the cardinal question in the suit is whether or no he bears that character.2. The material passages in the will, which was written in English, are as follows:I appoint my wife Srimati Surnomoyi Dasi the executrix, and my father Babu Madhusudan Dutt of Mullick's Street, aforesaid, and my uncle Babu Dwarka Nath Dutt of Thuntoneah in Calcutta aforesaid, the executors and trustees of this my will.Para. 8. Whereas having no son born to me of my body I am desirous of adopting one in my life-time, but ...
Daimulla Talukdar Vs. Maharulla Talukdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal918
Prinsep, J.1. There was a dispute between the parties who were related to one another, and on this, after having made certain inquiries, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the following order: 'The applicant must not plough more than 12 annas of the land.' In coming to this conclusion, as we learn from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's explanation, he has taken upon himself to decide questions of fact and questions of Mahomedan law, or in other words to exercise the functions of a Civil Court, so as to satisfy himself as to what are the actual rights of the parties to the lands in dispute. There were no proceedings taken under Section 145 in order to ascertain the actual possession of the land, nor, we may observe, is there anything to show that there was any probability of a breach of the peace. The proceedings before us, so far as they go, show that the parties are quarrelling regarding their rights to certain property which is claimed on one hand, to be joint in certain shares, and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›