Kolkata Court February 1901 Judgments
Harendra Lal Rai Chowdhri Vs. Maharani Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal557
Davey, J.1. This is an appeal by a money-lender in Bengal, who held a mortgage from Ram Churn Saha Poddar, and Madan Mohun Saha Poddar, brothers, for a sum which it is unnecessary to mention. Suffice it to say, that in the early part of the year 1888 the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Backergunge against the respondents to recover the sum of Rs. 49,855-14. The mortgage covered 90 different lots of land, some of them apparently, from the description in the schedule, being of small value, and others of larger value, but apparently not lying contiguous to each other. After the suit was commenced a compromise was come to, and that compromise is to be found in the consent-decree. The effect of that decree was this, that the defendants consented to judgment for the entire amount asked by the plaint, but subject to this proviso, that if, on a day which is the same as the 14th of August 1882, the defendants should pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 35,000...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Ali HosseIn Vs. Nazar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal289
Maclean, C.J.1. The main objection to the decree appealed against is, that the Court below was wrong in admitting oral evidence to show the real intention of the parties to the kobala in question, or in other words to show that the kobala in question was not intended, as it purported, to be an out-and-out sale, but only a katkobala or mortgage. If the evidence had been so directed, I should have held, having regard to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Balkishen Das v. Legge (1899) L.R. 27 I.A. 58; I. L. R. 22 All. 149 that the Court below was wrong in admitting it, but here it is reasonably clear that the evidence which was admitted was evidence as to the acts and conduct of the parties, and this Court following many other cases has decided in the Full Bench case of Preonaih Shaha v. Madhu Sudan Bhuiya (1898) I.L.R. 35 Cal. 603 that such evidence is admissible. There is a passage in the opinion of the Board in the Privy Council case to which I have referred which would a...
Tag this Judgment!Dwaeka Nath Mondul Vs. Beni Madhab Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal652
Maclean, C.J.1. I have heard nothing in the argument addressed to us to warrant me in changing or even qualifying the opinion I expressed in the ruling in the case of the Queen-Empress v. Dolgobind Dass (1900) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 211; (S.C.) 5 C.W.N. 169 and I adhere to that ruling. The argument in this case, however, has led me to doubt, whether the principle I have enunciated ought not to be held to apply to the case of a Mofussil Magistrate equally with that of a Presidency Magistrate, and whether the authorities which would appear to decide the contrary are well founded in law. That question is not before us to-day.2. I answer the question by saying that a Presidency Magistrate is competent to re-hear--I do not like the expression ' revive,' though I am aware it has been frequently used--a warrant-case triable under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he has discharged the accused person.Prlnsep, J.3. I am of the same opinion. I think it necessary, however, to add a f...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Taruck Hazra Vs. Dilwar Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal73
Banerjee, J.1. Is there any conflict2. The question, has not been referred to the Full Bench in a limited form.Maclean, C.J.3. There can be a Full Bench reference only when there is a conflict of judicial opinion on the point.4. I submit that the whole question' has been referred to the Full Bench, i. e., whether a suit lies to set aside the sale.5. Held by Maclean C.J. and Prinsep and Ameer Ali JJ. (Banerjee and Rampini JJ. dissenting) that it was not open to the learned pleader to argue his first point.6. My second point is that the suit was barred by Section 3127. [Babu Lalmohan Das, for the respondents: I contend that the second point also did not arise on the reference.]8. [Maclean C. J. I think you must confine your argument to the question arising on Section 2 of Bengal Act VII of 1868. If we hold that section is no bar, you can argue the other points when the case goes back to the Division Bench.]9. Then I submit that Section 2 of Bengal Act VII of 1868 does not apply to the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Amritaa Lal Bose Vs. Nemai Chand Mukhopadeya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal382
Francis W. Maclean, E.C.I.E., C.J.1. The question submitted for our consideration is, whether Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act bars a claim under Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a tenure or holding attached in execution of a decree for arrears due thereon, in all cases, or whether the operation is confined to claims to the tenure or holding and does not extend to claims based on the ground that the property claimed does not form part of the tenure or holding attached.2. There are, as has been pointed out in the reference, two conflicting decisions upon the point, the one reported in 4 Cal. W. Notes, 734, and the other in 4 Cal. W. Notes, 732.3. The question is not free from difficulty and the answer is dependent upon the true construction of Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, Sub-section 1, which is in these terms: 'Sections 278 to 283 (both inclusive) of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not apply to a tenure or holding attached in execution of a decree for arre...
Tag this Judgment!Matangini Debi Vs. Mokrura Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal674
Maclean, C.J.1. If it had not been for the view entertained by my learned colleague, I should have thought that this was a reasonably clear case. The question submitted to us is whether the plaintiff in this case is entitled to interest at the rate specified in the kabuliat executed by the defendant, or whether Section 67 of the Bengal Tenancy Act controls the provisions of Sections 179 of the same Act. Construing the Act by the ordinary rules of construction applicable to statutory enactments, the case does not to my mind present any real difficulty. Section 67 is general: Section 179 is particular and specific, and by it the Legislature has thought fit to make special provision in relation to permanent tenures in permanently-settled areas.2. The location of Section 179 is not without some importance in relation to the question we are now discussing; for it comes after Section 67 and after clause (h) of sub-Section 3 of Section 178, and the section says: 'Nothing in this Act'--I pause...
Tag this Judgment!Mokhada Dassee Vs. Nundo Lall Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal278
Maclean, C.J.1. The point we have to decide upon this appeal is, whether or not an indigent daughter, who is a sonless widow, is entitled to maintenance out of her father's estate which has descended, to his heir. The suit is one by a sonless widow against the heir of her deceased father, who as such heir acquired his property, for a declaration in effect that she is entitled to separate maintenance during her natural life out of her late father's estate.2. Except as to the indigency of the plaintiff, there is, virtually, no dispute of fact in the case, and no dispute that, at the time when the succession opened out, the plaintiff was a sonless widow.3. The facts as to the pedigree and relating to the other historical portion of the case have been admittedly stated with accuracy by the Court below, and there appears to be no necessity to recapitulate them.4. Upon the evidence I think it is at least doubtful whether the plaintiff is in the destitute condition she describes, but I will a...
Tag this Judgment!Srimohan Thakur Vs. W.O. Macgregory and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal769
1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title in respect of various moveable and immoveable properties, for partition, for accounts, and for other reliefs.2. The suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Bhagulpore, upon the ground that the plaintiff has not included in the suit all the joint family properties.3. The appeal is by the plaintiff, and certain cross-objections have been raised by the defendants to the judgment of the Court below. The family of which the plaintiff and the Thakur defendants are members, is governed by the Mitakshara School of Law.4. The facts which led up to the suit may shortly be thus stated. One Madan Mohun Thakur had three sons, Jugo Mohun Thakur, Brojo Mohun Thakur and Krishna Mohun Thakur. Jugo Mohun and Krishna Mohun predeceased their father, the latter died childless, but the former left a son, Hari Mohun Thakur, who died in April 1890, leaving two sons, Dgra Mohun Thakur and Pran Mohun Thakur. Brojo Mohun Thakur had f...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kissore Vs. Sewmuk Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal260
Maclean, C.J.1. I think that the preliminary objection must prevail. It is very important that in cases of this class, that is of a reference from the Small Cause Court to this Court, that the provisions of the statute which governs the matter should be strictly complied with.2. The judgment in this case was given on the 28th of May 1900. It was a judgment contingent upon the opinion of this Court, and it was submitted to the Court upon a reference under Section 70 of the Act (Act XV of 1882).3. Section 70 says, that 'when judgment is given under Section 69, contingent upon the opinion of the High Court, the party against whom such judgment is given shall at once furnish security to be approved by the Small Cause Court for the costs of the reference and for the amount of such judgment,' and then the section goes on to say, that 'unless such security is at once furnished the party against whom such contingent judgment has been given shall be deemed to have submitted to the same.'4. It a...
Tag this Judgment!Dinendra Nath Dutt (a Minor) Vs. T.H. Wilson and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal264
Maclean, C.J.1. This is a summons taken out by the infant-plaintiff in the suit asking for an order that upon payment of their taxed costs including the costs of, and incidental to, this application, to Messrs. Wilson, Chatterjee and Mitter, the attorneys on the record for the plaintiff, the name of Babu Priya Nath Sen be placed on the record in the said suit as such attorney for the plaintiff, with directions for taxing the costs.2. Upon that summons being served upon them, the solicitors, Messrs. Wilson & Co., intimated to the plaintiff's solicitor that they should appear by counsel at the hearing of the applications and, in consequence apparently of that intimation, the plaintiff said that he would file an affidavit showing grounds of application, and in consequence a long affidavit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff making certain charges against the solicitors, and that affidavit was replied to by the solicitors in repudiation of the charges. The matter came on under these circu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »