Kolkata Court July 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.
Shujat Ali and ors. Vs. Bhiku
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal25
Rampini and Gupta, JJ.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Sarun, dated the 11th of August 1898.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises relates to certain mortgage transactions between the parties. The details of these mortgage transactions are set out in the judgments of the lower Appellate Court and the Court of first instance, and it is unnecessary for us to recapitulate them here. It is sufficient to say that the appellant before us is the defendant No. 1, and on his behalf it has been urged, first that the suit is barred by limitation; secondly, that the District Judge is wrong in saying that an attachment in the case of a mortgage decree is illegal and unnecessary; thirdly, that the lower Courts are wrong in finding that the plaintiffs, when they took the zurpeshgi of the 1st of August 1879 from the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 intended to keep alive the prior mortgages of 1864 and 1866, which the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 paid off with the money then rece...
Kashi Prosad Singh Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal140
Ameer Ali and Pratt, JJ.1. These are several matters referred to us by the Deputy Registrar for the consideration of the question how the forty-three appeals preferred by the appellants in certain land acquisition oases decided by the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur should be dealt with under the circumstances which have happened.2. It appeal's that a large area of land belonging to the appellants was taken up for public purposes. The proprietors who are appellants, did not appear before the Land Acquisition Deputy Collector in time. The tenants appeared and accepted the award made by him, and so far as they are concerned the matter appears to have been concluded. But regarding the interest of the proprietors several references were made by the Deputy Collector to the Court, inasmuch as the lands acquired consisted of separate plots occupied not entirely by the same set of tenants, some, it is alleged, being held exclusively by the landlords. Those references came in due course before t...
A. Caspebsz Vs. Kader Nath Sabbadhikari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal738
Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit for ejectment. The defence is that the defendants are not1 liable to be ejected, as their tenure of the land in question is of a permanent nature. The matter comes before us on second appeal, and we are, there fore, bound by the findings of fact of the Court below.2. In support of their case the defendants first set up a pottah, which purported to show that the tenure was of a permanent nature. That document has been found by both the Courts below not to be genuine. But then the defendants say that, even if the pottah be not genuine, they have been for a very long time in possession of the land in dispute, that it has been from time to time transferred by succession and purchase from one tenant to another, that pucca buildings have, many years ago, been erected upon it by successive tenants, and that that has been done with the permission and knowledge of the landlord, and that, upon these facts, the Court would be justified in inferring or presuming that...
Raj NaraIn Mookerjee Vs. Ful Kumari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal68
Maclean, C.J.1. This was an application to the District Judge of Hooghly by a gentleman who was a surety in an administration bond granted in connection with the estate of his mother, to whose estate his sister was appointed administratrix, and the application was that the Court should call upon the administratrix to furnish a new surety and to release him from the liability under the security bond.2. The applicant's case is this. He admits that he became surety for his sister for the due administration of the mother's estate, to the extent of Rs. 22,000, but he says that the administratrix is wasting the estate, and that he is powerless to stop her by an administration suit or otherwise, as he has no interest in the estate, and he cannot prevail on any of the beneficiaries, who, he alleges, are colluding with his sister against him to take such administration proceedings, and, under such circumstances, he says it is only fair and reasonable that he be discharged. The matter came befor...
Lolit Mohan Moitra Vs. Surja Kanta Acharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal709
Ghose, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Maldah to show cause why, having regard to the statements made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit of one Baman Chandra Chowdhry, affirmed on the 23rd May 1901, and those contained in para. 12 of the verified petition presented to this Court, as also the statements made by the petitioner to the Magistrate himself in a petition, dated the 10th May, the case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioned in the said petition to this Court and now pending in the file of the said District Magistrate, should not be transferred to Rajshahye or some other district.2. The District Magistrate has, through a Deputy Magistrate, submitted an explanation, in which, among other matters, he raises the question whether this Court has power under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer a case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to some other Magistrate. And he has relied upon the case ...
Dilwar Ali and anr. Vs. Ram Taruck Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1901
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal94
Banerjee and Brett, JJ.1. This appeal arises cut of a suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents to set aside a side under the Public Demands Recovery Act (VII of 1880 B. C.) and to recover possession of a, certain share of the property sold, upon establishment of the plaintiffs' right to the same. The main allegations upon which the suit is based are, that mourn Bagh Kalapahar bearing No. 1381 on the tonji or register of the Burdwan Collectorate belonged to the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 to 9, the share of the plaintiffs being 8 annas 3 gnadas kara 1 kranti; that the Collector of the District filed a certificate naming Uie plaintiffs and some of their co-sharers as debtors, and stating, that a certain sum of money was duo from' them as road cess on account of wehal No. 1381 which was erroneously named as mouza Kothalgachi; that the sale proclamation which contained the same erroneous statement was published in mouza Kathalgachi and not in mouza, Bagh Kalupahar, and owing to ...
The Collector of Dacca Vs. Jagat Chunder Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1901
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal608
Maclean, C.J.1. This is an application for Letters of Administration to the estate, which is very small, of one Gopal Das Bairagee, who died in the month of Magh 1303. He was a bairagee, that is an ascetic, and the petitioner is his preceptor's preceptor, and, as such, claims to be entitled to such Letters of Administration. His application is resisted by the Secretary of State, who alleges that the deceased died without leaving any heir and that his estate has escheated to Government.2. The case of the petitioner is that, according to the custom which prevails in the sect, of which he and the deceased disciple were respectively members, he, as the preceptor of the dead man's preceptor, is entitled to his property: to which the Secretary of State replies that no such custom has been satisfactorily proved in this case.3. In the observations I am about to make I am dealing only with the concrete case now before us, namely, that of a dead disciple, who was initiated by a disciple, who was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›