Kolkata Court December 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.
Dinomoni Chowdhrani Vs. Brojo Mohini Chowdhrani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal187
Lindley, J.1. This appeal is from a judgment]and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, which modified the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Pubna and Bogra.2. The plaintiff (now the respondent) is the widow and executrix of one Hara Nath Chowdhry, who died on the 6th October 1884. She sued the defendant (the appellant) to establish her title and to recover possession of certain alluvial lands which had been formed by a change in the course of the river Brahmaputra, locally known as the Jamuna.3. The land in dispute lies between the villages of Suriber, Natipara and Jaganathpore on the west, and the villages of Chalaljore Khati (referred to in the litigation as Salal), Bhetna-khola and Khosatolly on the east. The greater portion of the land lies to the south of a line drawn from the southern boundary of Kalipore to the river. The plaintiff is the owner of the said three villages to the west, as also of the villages Bhetuakhola to the east. The d...
Amrito Lal Mukherjee Vs. Ram Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal60
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is a second appeal from an order of the District Judge of Hooghly setting aside an order of the Subordinate Judge of that district, dismissing a suit for default.2. It is contended that as the suit was dismissed for default no appeal lay to the District Judge and lie had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff should have applied to the Subordinate Judge under Section 103 for the restoration of the case to the file and might have appealed to the District Judge from an order refusing to set the dismissal aside.3. It is further urged that the District Judge improperly interfered with the discretion of the Subordinate Judge, who refused to grant a further postponement of the case.4. It seems to us that both these pleas are well-founded. The suit was dismissed for default of appearance by the Subordinate Judge. His order expressly states this. Such an order is not a decree and consequently no appeal lay from it to the Dis...
Annoda Prosad Ghose Vs. Rajendra Kumar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal223
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. The suit out of -which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to obtain a declaration of title to and recover possession of a 6 gunda 2 kara 2 krant share in a certain revenue estate. The plaintiff alleged that he had purchased the share of one Jadav Chandra Ghose on the 22nd of August 1894 at a sale in execution of a decree obtained against the heirs of Jadav Chandra Ghose. The sale was confirmed by the Civil Court on the 24th September of the same year. Subsequently, on the 30th December 1894, the share of Jadav Chandra Ghose in the estate was purchased by one Rup Lall Nag at a sale for arrears of revenue; and Rup Lall Nag is the defendant in this case against whom the plaintiff seeks possession.2. The Lower Courts have found that the share of Jadav Chandra Ghose was registered in the Collectorate Register, and that a separate account had been opened with regard to it. They have held that at the sale for arrears of revenue, on the 31st December 1894,...
Mohendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Biswanath Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal231
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergunnas, dated the 22nd of February 1900.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises is brought by the plaintiff for ejectment of his under-raiyat, the defendant, after service of notice to quit upon him under Section 49 (B) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. The first Court has given the plaintiff a decree.4. The lower Appellate Court has disallowed the plaintiff's prayer for ejectment and dismissed the suit.5. The plaintiff now appeals to us. The Subordinate Judge has apparently dismissed the suit for two reasons, namely, (1) that the notice to quit was not properly served upon the defendant, having been served through the Munsiff's Court, and not by the plaintiff himself, and (2) that the notice of the plaintiff was bad in law, because it was served in 1303 and required the defendant to vacate at the end of 1303.6. The learned pleader for the appellant urges that the Subordinate Judge is wron...
Ram Lochan Sarcar Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal214
Ameer Ali and Stevens, JJ.1. This Rule was granted on the application of one Ram Lochan Sarcar calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 150 and 157 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside on the ground that, in the absence of evidence indicating that the common object of the hired or assembled men was such as is stated in Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, the facts found could not constitute an offence under those sections. We do not refer to the second portion of the Rule which relates to the reduction of the sentence as, upon consideration of the whole case we are of opinion that the conviction must be set aside.2. In order to understand the circumstances which give rise to the application upon which this rule was obtained, it is necessary to mention that there is some dispute between the petitioner Kara Lochan Sarcar and his nephew Mohim Chandra Dutt regarding the possession o...
Jagannath Khan Vs. Brojonath Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal580
Rampini and Pratt JJ.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Faridpore passed in an execution case. The Subordinate Judge has refused execution, holding that it is barred by limitation. The decree-holder appeals to this Court.2. The decree which it is sought to execute was passed by the Calcutta Small Cause Court on the 16th August, 1891. Application for a seal warrant was made to the Court on the 4th August, 1894. The seal warrant was afterwards returned unexecuted.3. Another similar application was made on the 30th July, 1897. The seal warrant then issued was also returned unexecuted. On the 24th January, 1897, the decree was transferred for execution to the district of Faridpore, and application for execution was made to the Subordinate Judge.4. The Subordinate Judge has found that, as the proceedings in the Small Cause Court show that, although the two applications for the issue of seal warrants were made more than one year after the passing of the decree...
Atul Chunder Mookerjee Vs. Soshi Bhushan Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal63
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an application on the part of the plaintiff for change of attorney. The application is resisted by the attorney on the record, on the ground that the order can be obtained only on the usual terms of paying the costs due to him, and that, so long as the attorney to whom the plaintiff proposes to entrust the conduct of the case does not pay the costs due to the attorney on the record, or give an undertaking for such payment, he should not be compelled to make over the papers in the suit.2. The law relating to the question of an attorney's lien on papers held by him for his client is well settled. If the client himself discharges the solicitor, the latter is entitled to hold the papers till his costs are paid or a satisfactory undertaking given that such costs would be paid. But where the attorney discharges himself expressly or by implication, he has no Such right, and he has to make over the papers to the attorney, to whom the client proposes to go, retaining his...
Jagannath Manjhi Vs. Jumman Ali Putwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal247
Ghose and Brett, JJ.1. This is a suit for recovery of rent in respect of certain lands held by the principal defendants as raiyats under the plaintiffs, who, it appears, have obtained a howladari lease of the same from the zemindar defendants. It comprises a claim for additional rent for excess area in the ocoupation of the defendants.2. The learned District Judge has given the plaintiffs a modified decree; and against that decree the principal defendants have appealed to this Court.3. The first point that has been raised on behalf of the appellants 'by their learned Vakil is that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, it being contended that one Hari Charan Majhee to -whom the defendants had sold a portion of their raiyati interest has not been included as a party defendant, and that the zemindar defendants should have been added as party defendants. The second ground taken is that under the terms of the grant in favour of the plaintiffs, they are not entit...
Uttam Chandra Krithy Vs. Khetra Nath Chattopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal577
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs, dated the 25th July 1900.2. The case, out of which the appeal arises, is an execution ease. The respondent in this appeal had obtained a decree and, in execution of his decree, certain property belonging to the appellant was sold. The sale was confirmed. The decree-holder took possession on the 16th of August, 1899. Then the judgment-debtor put in an application for the setting side of the sale on the ground of irregularity and fraud. The application was contested and, on the 16th of December, 1899, the judgment-debtor put in a compromise petition to which the decree-holder consented, and it was agreed that the judgment-debtor should have time up to 6th of February, 1900, to pay up the full decretal amount, and that then the sale should be set aside; but that if he failed, the sale should stand good. On the 6th February, 1900, the judgment-debtor paid a portion of the money and obtained...
Ghulam Khan Vs. Muhammad Hassan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal167
Macnaghten, J.1. The object of this appeal is to set aside an award which was made on a reference to arbitration with the view of determining the rights and interests of the parties to this litigation in two Government leases.2. The appeal is against two decisions of the Chief Court of the Punjab. The one determined that no appeal lay from the decree of the Subordinate Judge made in accordance with the award. The other was passed on revision. It varied the decree, but only in a matter of little or no practical importance.3. The question appears to their Lordships to turn upon the true construction and effect, of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to arbitration. The decisions of the Indian Courts on those provisions are so conflicting that it may be useful to state generally the conclusions at which their Lordships have arrived on some of the disputed points brought to their attention in the course of the argument.4. The chapter in the Code of Civil Procedure on Ref...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »