Kolkata Court July 1900 Judgments
Sukumari Bewa, Minor by Her Father and Guardian Chema Malia Vs. Ananta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal168
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one brought by a widow to recover possession of the property of her deceased husband, held by a person who claimed to be her husband's adopted son. The plaintiff did not appear on the day fixed for the hearing of the case and no witnesses were produced on her behalf. The Munsif, therefore, proceeded to take the evidence of the defendants' witnesses, and upon the evidence he found that the adoption had not been proved.2. On appeal to the District Judge, that officer held that the adoption had been proved, and he, therefore, dismissed the suit.3. Now the plaintiff has appealed to this Court, and on her behalf two grounds have been taken: First, that the Court below has erred in law in holding that adoption by a leper is valid; and secondly, that the Lower Appellate Court was wrong in not remanding the case to give the plaintiff an opportunity of examining her witnesses.4. With regard to the first point we need only say that the decision of ...
Tag this Judgment!Harro Kumari Chowdhrani and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Sarbogya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal188
1. It remains now to consider the third and last contention he appellants. It is argued for the appellants, that as the lease to the defendants reserves rent at a certain rate per bigha and not a lump sum, as the rent of the taluq, they are bound to pay rent for the lands in their possession, notwithstanding that they have been dispossessed by their landlords from other lands of their tenure, and in support of this contention the case of Dhunput Singh v. Mahomed Kazim (1896) I.L.R. 24 Cal. 296 is cited. The case, in our opinion, is, however, quite distinguishable from the present. There the case comprised several mouzahs or villages, and though they were granted in putni as a single tenure, the rent of each village was separately Specified, and it was held that the landlord, in that state of things, was not debarred from recovering rent for some of the villages, merely because he had dispossessed the putnidar from the rest. But we do not think it can reasonably be said that each bigha ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran GaraIn Vs. Tek Chand GaraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal194
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by one Ram Saran Garain for declaration of his title to, and partition of certain immoveable property described in the plaint as the property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Law. The family according to the plaint consists of the plaintiff and his five brothers, being the sons of the defendant No. 1, Tek Chand Garain, by Mussamut Marno the defendant No. 4; of Dharam Singh, also a son of Tek Chand Garain by another wife Mussamut Dhano; and of Tek Chand Garain himself.2. The position of the plaintiff Ram Saran Garain as the son of Tek Chand Garain is denied, the case of the principal defendant Dharam Singh being that Ram Saran was the son of a man by the name of Budhoo Danook to whom Mussamut Marno had been many years ago married, but that she subsequently deserted him and lived under the protection of his father, the defendant No. 1.3. The first question that was raised in this case was whether Ram Saran Garain ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunja Behary Singh Vs. Surendra Kumar Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal814
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1.Two points only have been raised upon this appeal. The question of whether or not the plaintiff and defendant were partners, has very properly not been pressed before us. The first point we have to determine is a question of limitation, and it arises in this way. There had undoubtedly been money transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the former had undoubtedly lent the latter Rs. 1,000 for which he now sues, and on the 1lth of June 1894 the defendant gave an acknowledgment in writing of the debt, which admittedly would take the case out of the Statute, if the suit were instituted within 3 years from that date.2. The question then is, when was the suit instituted? The plaintiff says on the 7th June 1897, the defendant says on the 15th June 1897. If on the former date, the suit is not barred; if on the latter, it is. What then are the facts3. On its face, the plaint purports to have been filed on the 7th June 1897 and this is what ha...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Charan Das Vs. Muktakeshi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal149
Maclean, C.J.1. This appeal music succeed. A preliminary objection has been taken that an appeal does not lie to this Court from an order of the District Judge in a case such as the present. I am unable to accept that view. Section 86 of the Probate and Administration Act says that every order made by a District Judge or District Delegate by virtue of the powers thereby conferred upon him shall be subject to appeal to the High Court. The order now appealed against is an order made by the District Judge, but it is said that an appeal does not lie because the expression 'hereby,' only applies to powers conferred under the chapter which contains the section, and this argument rests upon the position in which the section is placed in the Act itself. I am unable to accept that view: there is nothing in the Act to narrow the meaning of the expression 'hereby' which to my mind means 'by the whole Act' and not merely by the chapter in which the section appears. An appeal, therefore, lies. * * ...
Tag this Judgment!Administrator-general of Bengal, Executor to the Estate of the Late Ku ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal227
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants certain arrears of rent in respect of a holding in their occupation with interest at 75 per cent, per annum. and the only question in the case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to that interest. It appears that one Banu Gazi on the 28th of April 1876, executed in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiff a kabuliat by which he agreed to pay interest at that rate on arrears of rent. Banu Gazi has since died, and the defendants are his heirs. The lease was for six years and the term expired in 1881, since then the defendants have been holding over. The Lower Courts have given the plaintiff interest at the rate of 12 per cent. Hence this appeal. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff appellant, as was evidently contended in the Courts below, that inasmuch as the original contract was entered into prior to the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the condition relating to interest is untouched...
Tag this Judgment!NazamuddIn Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal344
Prinsep, J.1. The petitioner, who is a peon attached to the Office of the Superintendent of the Salt Department in the district of Muzafferpore has been convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The first question that we have to consider on this rule is whether the petitioner is a public servant within the terms of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended by Mr. Abdur Rahim that he does not fall within the terms of the last portion of Clause 9 of that section, which declares that 'every officer in the service or pay of Government' is a public servant, because he is not an officer. The case of Reg. v. Ramajirav Jivbajirav (1875) 12 Bom. H.C.R. 1. is cited as authority for this. The learned Judges in that case had to consider whether a lessee from Government was on the conditions of his lease a public servant, and, in doing so, they considered generally the meaning of the term 'officer.' It was there held that an officer means 'some person employed to exercise,...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Singh and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal411
1. These are two rules relating to the same trial and it will be more convenient that they should be disposed of simultaneously.2. It appears that, in consequence of some combination amongst about 30 villages in the District of Patna to resist all measures for the prevention or suppression of the plague and an apprehension that a riot was likely to take place, the District Magistrate appointed a considerable number of the principal inhabitants of the villages to serve as special constables. To carry out this order, Mr. Baker, Inspector of Police, accompanied by the Sub-Inspector and two constables, went to the village of the petitioners for the purpose of informing the 3 petitioners, Nawrangi, Sewbaran and Gangabissen Singh, that they had been appointed special constables under Section 17 of the Police Act of 1861. On arriving at this village, the Police Officers found a large number of people assembled. Mr. Baker, the Inspector of Police, gave notice that Nawrangi, Sewbaran and Gangab...
Tag this Judgment!Hara Kumary Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. R. Savi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal314
Prinsep, J.1. The three petitioners have been convicted of an attempt to commit an offence under Section 422 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that their property is now under mortgage to the Land Mortgage Bank, and that under the terms of the agreement Messrs. Garth and Weatherall are managers of that estate under certain conditions in regard to payment of the monies realized by them. The petitioners have shown a disposition to be dissatisfied with that management, and are endeavouring to get rid of it, if possible. In execution of a decree obtained by Messrs. Garth and Weatherall, as managers of their estate, in a suit brought in the names of the mortgagors, a certain putni taluk was sold for Rs. 3,000 and arrangements were made to enable the debtor to release his property from the sale on payment of certain money within a certain time. He was unable to fulfil the terms of that agreement; so be appears to have gone to the petitioners, and it was settled with them that, on payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Shama Prosunno Bose Mozumdar and anr. Vs. Brakoda Sundari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal146
Maclean, C.J.1. Although the Officiating District Judge has not stated the principle upon which he has made his apportionment I think that, in the result, he is right. The question is one of the apportionment of certain compensation money awarded under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as between the landlord and the tenant of the land taken by the Railway Company. The compensation money amounted to Rs. 600, and the Court below has ordered it to be divided in equal shares between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord complains of this, and has appealed. In the case of Khetter Kristo Hitter v. Dinendra Narain Roy (1897) 3 C.W.N. 202. I expressed my view as to the apportionment of the compensation money as between landlord and tenant, and in effect followed the course taken in the case of Dunne v. Nobo Krishna Mookerjee (1889) I.L.R. 17 Cal. 145 (147) though I spoke of it as a somewhat rough and ready method of settlement. But in a quite recent case, which came before Mr. J...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »