Kolkata Court August 1901 Judgments

Khajeh Salimullah Vs. Abul Khair M. Mustafa

Court: Kolkata

Mookerjee and Vincent, JJ.1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has culminated in this appeal, consists of immoveable properties comprised in two waqfs, one created by Ayinuddin Hyder on the 22nd April 1864, and the other by his widow, Faizunnessa Bibi on the 29th January 1877. The plaintiff, who is a relation of the founders of the two waqfs, seeks for declaration of his right as mutawalli and for recovery of possession of the properties of the endowments. The first defendant is the Nawab of Dacca and is now in possession of the properties as the mutawalli under the deed of Faizunnessa executed on the 29th January 1877. The second defendant is a cousin of the plaintiff, who had previously failed in a litigation commenced by him on the 14th August 1880 for recovery of possession of the waqf properties as mutawalli. The third and fourth defendants are sisters of the plaintiff and have been brought on the record as members of the family interested in the endowment. Their relatio...

NaraIn UddIn Vs. Srimanta Ghose and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal219

Maclean, C.J.1. In my opinion the view taken by both the Courts below is correct. I read the words 'his tenure or holding shall be liable to sale in execution of a decree for the rent thereof,' in Section 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act as pre-supposing a suit and a decree under the Act, that is, a decree made in a suit in which all the landlord co-sharers are plaintiffs and not merely some of them, that is fractional co-sharers. This view gains support from Section 188 of the Act. Here the claim is for the rent of four years of which the rent of the first two years was properly due and payable to the plaintiffs as the 16 annas landlords, but as regards the last two years' rent the plaintiffs were fractional landlords only. At the date of the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs were fractional co-sharers only.2. We are invited to split up the decree and to say that, as regards the first two years' rent, it was a decree at the instance of all the landlords and therefore one in which th...

Rojomoyee Dassee Vs. Troylukho Mohiney Dassee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal260

Stanley, J.1. There can be no direction for me to take the accounts on the ground of wilful neglect and default. If there is no evidence given to establish misconduct against the executors, there will be no misconduct. Those charges must be either pressed or abandoned.2. All that we are asking for is an ordinary account of their dealings. I contend that, inasmuch as the testator did not establish a thakoor in his lifetime, the directions to establish it, the provisions made for its worship, and the gift of the residuary estate to the thakoor, are void in Hindu law, except as to the annuities and legacies given by the Will. The testator's estate has descended to the widow; in other words there has been an intestacy with regard to these.3. With regard to paragraph 4 of the Will, under Hindu Law, as laid down by the Privy Council in Tagore v. Tagore (1872) 9 B. L. R. 399. you cannot give property to a person who is not in existence at the time the gift takes effect, and an idol is a jurid...

Ashutosh Nath Ray Vs. Abdool

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal676

1. The facts of this case are that there was a settlement of the plaintiff's rent by a Settlement Officer in May 1891. It is said the present defendant applied for a settlement of his tenants' rents, including that of the plaintiff, but his petition is not to be found on the record. However, it has been decided that the Settlement Officer has jurisdiction to settle the plaintiff's rent as he was found to be in possession of excess land. The Settlement Officer accordingly increased the plaintiff's rent from Rs. 7, odd, to Rs. 9-12. The plaintiff raised no objection under Section 105 of the old Chapter X. He preferred no appeal to the Special Judge. He remained perfectly quiet. The defendant's estates being under the management of the Court of Wards, a certificate for the amount due for the rent of 1303 and 1304, due from the plaintiff, was issued in 1895-96. The plaintiff then objected to the certificate, but his objection was disallowed on the 25th January, 1897. He accordingly institu...

C.E. Grey Vs. Woogramohun Thakur

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal790

1. This Rule was issued on the application of Mr. Grey, the Receiver, appointed by this Court, of an eight annas share in; certain property, calling upon Woogramohun Thakur of Barari to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for contempt, for having forcibly taken possession of a piece of land in the possession of the said Receiver without any warrant of authority or the consent of the Receiver, or why such other order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. Cause has now been shown by the learned Counsel for the opposite party. It is necessary to set out some of the circumstances before dealing with the matter raised in the Rule.3. It appears that Woogramohun Thakur is entitled to a four annas interest in the property in question, another four annas be longs to his brother Pran Mohun Thakur, and the remaining eight annas to the parties to the action in which the Receiver was appointed. The suit was brought by Sri Mohun Thakur for partition of the prop...

Janki Dass Vs. Ram Golam Sahu and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal813

1. This is a suit to set aside a sale held in execution of a certificate issued by the Collector.2. The plaintiff alleges that no notice under Section 10 of the Act was issued to him, that the proceedings connected with the sale were irregular, that the purchaser at the sale, the defendant No. 2, is a benamidar for the defendant No. 1, who, along with the defendant No. 3, was jointly liable with him (the plaintiff) for the debt for which the certificate was issued, and that, as the defendant No. 1 is the real purchaser of the property, he is bound in equity to reconvey to the plaintiff the plaintiff's share in it, which was sold. Both the lower Courts have decided that the suit was not maintainable, as the suit is not one to set aside the certificate, and as the certificate has become absolute, no steps having been taken to cancel it within the time prescribed by the law for the purpose. Hence, they held the sale cannot be set aside.3. The plaintiff appeals. On his behalf it is contend...