Kolkata Court July 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.
Hari Mahanti and ors. Vs. Patit Shahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal789
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. In this suit the plaintiffs sue to have it declared (1) that a sale under Act X of 1859 of a certain under-tenure, at which the defendant No. 1 purchased it, be declared null and void; (2) that the plaintiffs have a good title to the tenure; (3) and that their possession of the same be confirmed.2. The tenure originally belonged to the defendant No. 2, who sold portions of it to defendant No. 3, and the father of defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs subsequently purchased it for Rs. 475, but they never got their names registered in the landlord's sherishta.3. The landlord, who is the Raja of Puri, then sued the original tenant, defendant No. 2, got a decree, and in execution put the tenure up to sale, at which it was bought by defendant No. 1. Hence this suit.4. The First Court found (1) that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a declaration of their right by purchase, for they had not registered their names in the landlord's sherishta; (2) that the sale, at which t...
Prasanna Kumari Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Hridoy Krishna Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal142
Maclean, C.J.1. A variety of objections have been taken on this appeal, but most of them have been disposed of in the course of the argument. I allude to the points, that the present appellants took their lease under an authority conferred by the plaintiff's mother-in-law, a point not taken in any of the Courts below; that the appellant's possession as raiyats gave them a good title although they obtained that possession through the pro forma defendants who were themselves mere trespassers; and that the present case falls within the principle of Watson and Co. v. Ramchund Dutt (1890) I.L.R. 18 Cal. 10: L.R.2. These points have been disposed of during the course of the argument, and it is sufficient to say that I do not think there is anything in any of them.3. The only other point is as to the admissibility of the decree in the previous suit, No. 1 of 1890, thought it has been suggested that if the Court decided against the present appellants they were entitled to some compensation. I ...
BabaluddIn Mahomed and ors. Vs. Dwarka Nath Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal166
1. These are two appeals against a decision of the District Judge of Midnapore, dated the 27th January 1899.2. The point in the case is whether the defendants, who are under raiyats, are liable to pay rent to the plaintiffs at a higher rate than 50 per cent. per annum, above the rate the plaintiffs pay to their landlord.3. It appears that before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act they entered into a written and registered lease agreeing to pay rent to the plaintiffs at a rate higher than 50 per cent. above what the plaintiffs paid to their landlord.4. The Lower Courts have concurrently held that in spite of the kabuliat, the plaintiffs cannot recover rents exceeding by 50 per cent. what they themselves pay.5. The plaintiffs now appeal, and on their behalf the cases of Atulya Churn Bose v. Tulsi Das Sarker (1895) 2 C.W.N. 543 and Basanta Kumar Boy Chowdhry v. Promotho Nath Bhuttacharjee (1898) I.L.R. 26 Cal. 130 have been cited, and we have ourselves referred to the case of Tejendro ...
Kali Prosad Mahisal and anr. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal7
Prinsep, J.1. Two points are taken in this application for revision. It is first contended that there has been a misjoinder of parties, and that, therefore, the trial is bad. In the next place it is contended that, on the facts found, the Sessions Judge should not properly have convicted the petitioners under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, of dishonestly receiving and retaining as stolen property, this property which had been taken by criminal misappropriation, knowing it to be such.2. Now, in regard to misjoinder, it has been recently held by a Full Bench in In the matter of Abdur Rahman (1890) I.L.R. 27 Cal. 839 that misjoinder of charges is not fatal to the proceedings, but that it is an irregularity which requires that the Courts should consider under the terms of Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure, whether it has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. The same rules, we think, should apply to a case of misjoinder of parties, as in the present case, and we may observe, in r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›