Kolkata Court June 1900 Judgments
Lalon Bibi and Parbati Bai and ors. Vs. Dhan Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal801
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is a suit brought by one Lalon Bibi to establish her right to obtain possession of a 12 annas share of the property of one Khoda Baksh, now deceased. The plaintiff alleges that her mother Parbati, who was a Hindu, became a Mussulman, and was married by Khoda Baksh, that she is the result of their union and was acknowledged by Khoda Baksh to be his legitimate daughter, and that she is accordingly entitled to the share of the property claimed by her.2. The defence is that Parbati never became a Mahomedan, and was never married by Khoda Baksh, and that the plaintiff never was acknowledged by Khoda Baksh to be his daughter.3. The first District Judge, before whom the case came, found that Parbati was a Hindu prostitute, who lived with Khoda Baksh as his mistress; she never became a Mahomedan and Khoda Baksh never married her. He found, however, that Khoda Baksh had, before his death, acknowledged the plaintiff as his daughter.4. When this case first came befor...
Tag this Judgment!Phul Chand Lal and ors. Vs. Kishmish Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1900
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.630
1. The subject-matter of this Rule is an order made by the District Judge of Patna purporting to be an order under Act XIX of 1841. By this order, the District Judge declined to take any action upon the petition presented to him by the petitioners under the said Act, upon the ground that the claim of right made by the opposite party, Musammat Kishmish Koer, seemed to him to be bona fide.2. The facts which it is necessary to mention in this connection are shortly these: The estate belonged to one Kunt Das. He died leaving a widow Musammat Mandil Koer. This lady adopted one Jaggarnath Das. After this adoption, the petitioner before us brought a suit for a declaratory relief upon the ground that they were the next takers of the inheritance after the death of the widow Mandil Koer and that the adoption made by her was illegal. Juggarnath Das died during the pendency of the suit and was substituted in his place by his widow Musammat Kishmish Koer. His suit seems to have been decreed both by...
Tag this Judgment!Lal NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Mahomed Rafiuddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal81
Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Bhagalpur, dated the 22nd September, 1899.2. The case in which the Subordinate Judge's decision was passed was an execution case. It appears that execution had been applied for by the decree-holder, but the judgment-debtor raised certain objections, one of which, we are told, was that the decree was barred by limitation. On the date fixed for the hearing of the 'judgment debtors' objections, their pleader appeared and pleaded 'want of instructions'; and the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr recorded the following order:The judgment-debtors' Vakil pleads want of instructions. Their objections, which are not very plausible on their face, must be dismissed for default, etc.4. Against this order an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, who, on the 22nd of September 1899, held that no appeal lay to him, as the case had been dismissed for default, and the order of the Subordinate Judge was an order and not a decree,...
Tag this Judgment!Kumudini Kanta Guha and anr. Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal104
Prinsep, J.1. The rules before us I have been obtained by Mohesh Chandra Guha, the father, and Kumudini Kanta Guha, the son, who have been convicted at the same trial by the Magistrate of receiving stolen property, namely, currency notes, as well as under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code of assisting in concealing or disposing of such notes which they knew or had reason to believe were stolen property.2. In trying these two persons together in the same trial, there has, no doubt, been a misjoinder of parties. Each of these persons is charged with the same offences only in respect of a currency note of Rs. 500, but in respect of the charges on the two currency notes of 100 the charge against each of the accused related only to one of these currency notes, and, therefore, the transaction was altogether separate and distinct against each of them.3. There is no reason why, in respect of the matter connected with the note of Rs. 500, the two petitioners might not be properly tried toget...
Tag this Judgment!Dino Nath Sanyal Vs. Umakanta Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal4
1. This is a second appeal against an order under Section 312, Code of Civil Procedure, setting aside a sale.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal lies.3. From the final clause of Section 588 this would appear to be correct,and the cases of Nana Kumar Roy v. Golam Chunder Dey (1891) I.L.R. 18 Cal. 422 Aubhoya Dassi v. Pudmo Loohun Mondol (1895) I.L.R. 29 Cal. 802 and Daivanayagan Pillai v.Bangasami Ayyar (1894) I.L.R. 19 Mai 29 support this view.3. On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant, it has been contended, with the view of bringing this case within the rulings of this Court in the oases of Bhubon Mohun Pal v. Nunda Lai Dey (1899) I.L.R. 26 Cal. 324 Nemai Chand Kanji v. Deno Nath Kanji (1898) 2 C.W.N. 691 and Rojoni Kant Bagchi v. Hossain Uddin Ahmed (1899) 4 C.W.N. 538 that the respondent judgment-debtor made an allegation of fraud against the decree-holder in his petition for the setting aside of the sale, and therefore, that the order passed was o...
Tag this Judgment!Surjyamoni Dasi, Minor, by Her Next Friend and Guardian Jatan Bewa and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal37
1. The plaintiff in this case is a Hindu of the Rajbansi caste. He has brought this suit for restitution of conjugal rights against defendant No. 1 (who is described in the plaint as a minor) through her next friend and guardian, her paternal grandmother. He has joined as defendants in the suit the paternal grandmother as defendant No. 2, Bishwambhar Das as defendant No. 3, who is alleged by the defence to have contracted a marriage with defendant No. 1, and Amir Chand Das and Gobind Das as defendants Nos. 4 and 5, who are described as uncles of defendant No. 1 and her nearest male agnates.2. The allegations in the plaint are that defendant No. 1 was given in marriage to the plaintiff in Joistha 1303 by defendant No. 2, her paternal grandmother, and next of kin and guardian: that the marriage was performed with all the customary rites, as required by the Shastras and the caste to which the parties belong, and, that from the time of the marriage to Joistha 1304, plaintiff lived in the h...
Tag this Judgment!Bidhu Chandalini Vs. Mati Sheikh Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal102
Prinsep, J.1. The terms of Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on which the Sessions Judge relies in making this reference, must be read as controlled by Section 437. Section 437 does not limit the power of a District Magistrate to make, or order a Subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into a case in which an order of dismissal or discharge may have been passed by a Subordinate Magistrate. There is no bar to a District Magistrate making further inquiry himself into a case in which such order may have been passed by himself.2. We, therefore, see no sufficient reason to interfere as a Court of Revision....
Tag this Judgment!Luchmi Koer Vs. Roghu Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal971
Robertson, J.1. The question raised by this appeal is whether the appellant was the wife and is now the widow of Raja Ram Das, who died on 27th November 1878. The suit was initiated by the appellant on 22nd November 1890 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirhut. The plaint and the written statement of the respondent, who, being heir of the deceased, appeared as defendant, involved other questions on which issue was joined; but these it is now unnecessary to rehearse. Many witnesses were examined and many exhibits were filed. On 19th September 1892, the Subordinate Judge of Tirhut found that the plaintiff was the lawfully married wife of Raja Ram Das and is now his widow, and he pronounced a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750 a month. An appeal having been taken to the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, that Court on 10th September 1895 set aside the Subordinate Judge's decree and dismissed the suit with costs. The present appeal is brought from that j...
Tag this Judgment!Deo NaraIn Chowdhury and ors. Vs. C.R.H. Webb and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal86
Ghose, J.1. Two points have been raised before us in this appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, appellant, one being that so far as the plots Nos. 1 and 2 covering an area of 5 cottahs of land are concerned, the plaintiff is not barred by the limitation of two years prescribed by Article 3,schedule. Ill, of the Bengal Tenancy Act, because there was an order by the Magistrate, under the provisions of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, attaching the lands in question, and the limitation prescribed by Article 47, Schedule III of the Indian Limitation Act for setting aside such an order is three years from the date when the order is made; and the other point raised is, that the defendant not having raised the plea of limitation; and the Munsif not having raised an issue as to limitation, the Subordinate Judge in appeal ought not to have dismissed the case upon the ground of limitation, without, at any rate, allowing the plaintiff an opportunity of adducing evidence upon the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Das Rakhit and anr. Vs. Umesh Chandra Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal985
Prinsep, J.1. This matter has already once been before this Court under circumstances somewhat similar to those now before us. The petitioners were then being prosecuted for perjury and forgery, alleged to have been committed in proceedings taken before the Deputy Collector under the Land Acquisition Act? And for reasons stated by the Judges of the Criminal Bench of this Court, on a rule granted, the proceedings were quashed as premature and without jurisdiction. The Collector, finding that the bar has been removed because the Civil Court has, in his opinion, finally decided the matter under the Land Acquisition Act, has renewed his complaint before the Magistrate and he has put the offence under Section 177, Indian Penal Code, which is declared to be applicable to such proceedings by Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The complaint was made against two persons, Durga Das Rakhit, the lessor, and Abhoy Charan Dey, the lessee, claiming to hold a portion of the land taken, up under...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »