Kolkata Court November 1901 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.
Bahir Das Chakravarti Vs. NobIn Chunder Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal306
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 3rd January 1900, passed in a suit for possession of certain land after proving title thereto.2. The pleader for the appellants contends that the proceedings of the Subordinate Judge are wrong, inasmuch as they are subsequent to the order of remand passed by him on the 5th of August 1898; and he contends that this order of remand and the subsequent proceedings are invalid and null and void, inasmuch as the case, in the circumstances, should not have been remanded.3. The facts are these. The plaintiffs and the contending defendants, while the case was in the Court of, the Munsiff, presented an application to him asking that a pleader might be appointed as Commissioner to ascertain who held the land on either side of the Vial in dispute, and agreed that, if the plaintiffs were found in possession of such land, they should get a decree, while if the defendant No. 1 was found in pos...
Parbati Nath Dutt Vs. Rajmohun Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal367
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Officiating Additional Judge of Dacca, dated 4th July 1900, setting aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of that District, dismissing a suit as barred by limitation and remanding it to him for trial.2. The facts are as follows: The respondent was a party to a partition before the Collector under the Estates Partition Act. He contended before the Collector that certain land, measured as part of taluk No. 2466, the estate under partition, was not part of that estate, but appertained to his howla, Muktaram Datta Das, subordinate to taluks Nos. 241, 242 and 243. The Revenue authorities enquired into his contention under Section 116 of the Act and decided it against him. The respondent then brought this suit to have it declared that the disputed land was part of his howla, Muktaram Datta Das, but he brought his suit after the lapse of one year, and so the Subordinate Judge held it to be barred and dismissed it.3. The Addi...
Hemangini Chowdhrani Vs. Srigobinda Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal203
Ghose and Brett, JJ.1. This was a suit in ejectment. The Court of First Instance dismissed it, but the Lower Appellate Court has given a decree to the plaintiff.2. The real question that we are called upon to determine in this appeal is whether the notice to quit served upon the defendants, was reasonable and sufficient and whether the defendants are entitled to have the suit dismissed, if such notice was not reasonable and sufficient.3. The notice with which we are concerned bears date the 26th of Joista 1304, and it calls upon the defendants to quit the land at the end of six months, namely, on the last day of the mouth of Agrahan of the same year 1304. It, however, treats the defendants as marfatdars, they having paid rent from year to year in place of the original tenant.4. The suit was brought on the 28th January 1898 corresponding to the 16th Magh 1304.5. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the tenancy in the occupation of the defendants was an annual tenancy expiring at the ...
Rup Chand Mahton Vs. Gurdan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal283
Rampini and Sale, JJ.1. These are forty-five appeals against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur, dated the 25th of September 1897.2. The suits were brought by the plaintiffs for arrears of rent. The defendants raised various pleas, and denied their liability to pay rent. These pleas were overruled by both the lower Courts. In this Court four of the pleas have been pressed before us, namely, first, that the suits are not maintainable; secondly, that the rent of 1308 is barred; thirdly, that the rent of the four-anna last of 1304 is premature; and fourthly, that the finding as to the rate of rent is not supported by any evidence.3. We think there is no force in any of these contentions.4. The first plea is that the suits are not maintainable, because it appears that there was an ekrarnamah between the co-sharer landlords, and that subsequently two of the co-sharer landlords obtained a decree against the other co-sharers for an additional share, and this decree was affir...
Tara Pado Ghose Vs. Kamini Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal644
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an appellate order. The facts are that a decree for foreclosure was passed in favour of the respondent on the 7th June 1898. It was made absolute on the 22nd December 1898. Possession was taken on the 30th January 1899. On the 8th February 1899 the defendant applied for a rehearing under Section 108, Civil Procedure Code. The Munsif refused her application. She appealed to the Subordinate Judge, who remanded the case for re-enquiry under Section 562, Civil Procedure Code. The Munsif then adhered to his former decision. The Subordinate Judge on a further appeal to him being made passed an order, allowing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 380, and on her doing so, directed her restoration to possession of the land. The plaintiff prefers this second appeal. A preliminary objection is raised that no second appeal lies under the provisions of Section 588. This objection would seem to be valid. The learned Advocate-General contends for the a...
Ebrahim Sircar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal236
Harington and Gupta, JJ.1. In case No. 407, a rule was granted calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the proceedings taken against the petitioners under Section 186, Penal Code, should not he quashed. The rule was granted on several grounds, but there is one ground which is, in our opinion, conclusive. The proceeding under Section 186 was for obstructing the Receiver of an estate in collecting rents. The only acts that are alleged against the petitioners are that they persuaded and urged the tenants not to pay rent to the Receiver. Assuming that they did so persuade the tenants, in our opinion such persuasion addressed to the tenants in the absence of the Receiver does not constitute an obstruction of the Receiver within the moaning of Section 186 of the Penal Code.2. In case No. 480, a rule, similar to the one in the last case, was granted for the purpose of setting aside a proceeding under Section 188 of the Penal Code. In that case it was alleged that the petitioner...
Uma Charan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal244
Harington and Gupta, JJ.1. In this case a rule has been granted calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the four petitioners should not be set aside. The petitioners had been convicted of offences under Sections 147 and 325 of the Penal Code. The unlawful assembly of which they are said to have been members was formed for the purpose of resisting the execution of a warrant which had been issued in favour of the decree-holder by a Civil Court. The ground on which the rule was granted was that the warrant was not a legal one, and, therefore, that an assembly for resisting the execution of such a warrant was not an unlawful assembly. The objection to the warrant is that it is general in its terms, and does not on the face of it purport to authorize the seizure of the property of the petitioners nor does it purport to give the peon authority to enter into the house of the petitioners for the purpose of attaching their property. The petit...
Panchoo Gazi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal455
Harington and Gupta, JJ.1. In this case a rule was granted calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why an order made under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be set aside on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction. It appears that the petitioner had been bound over m what is usually known as a bad-livelihood case to be of good behaviour. The District Magistrate, purporting to act under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cancelled the security bond on a report which he received from the police, and ordered that the' petitioner should be imprisoned, until a fresh security bond should be given. The Magistrate was not entitled to make that order under Section 125. Accordingly the rule must be made absolute and the Magistrate's order set aside.2. The rules granted in cases Nos. 878, 879, 880, and 881 of 1901 are made absolute for the same reason....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›