Kolkata Court February 1902 Judgments
Administrator General Vs. Aghore Nath Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal420
Maclean, C.J.1. The real question in this appeal is whether or not the respondent is entitled to have a certain sale to him set aside; or whether he is bound by it and only entitled to compensation for a certain misdescription in the property sold. The facts are as follows: The application to the Court below was by one Aghore Nath Mookerjee, who was the purchaser of certain premises comprised in lot No. 3, at a sale held by the Registrar in the mortgage suit on the 8th July 899. The applicant asked for one of three reliefs: he asked for the rectification of the boundaries in the certificate of sale of the premises sold to him or for compensation in respect of a certain cock-room as to which he says there has been a misdescription in the particulars, or otherwise that the sale to him of the premises might be 'Set aside, and the purchase-money refunded with interest. Nothing turns upon the first head of relief sought: this has been abandoned.2. The property, lot 3, is thus described in t...
Tag this Judgment!Maharani Beni Pershad Koeri Vs. Raj Kumar Chowbey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1902
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.111
1. In this appeal, the plaintiff is the appellant. In the Court of first instance she sued to recover from the defendants arrears of rent for the years 1303 to 1305 on the allegation that the yearly jama payable by the defendants was Rs. 53-4-0.2. The defendants contended that the yearly rent was Rs. 42-12. In support of her claim, the plaintiff relied on a judgment and decree dated the 20th January 1887 in which in a suit brought by her predecessor against the same defendants, the claim was decreed at the rental of Rs. 53-4-0 per annum. The defendants, on the other hand, relied on a judgment and decree dated the 21st December 1896 in which in a similar case, the plaintiff obtained a decree at the rental of Rs. 42-12-0. Before the Munsif, it was argued on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff in this case was barred by the doctrine of res judicata from recovering rent at a higher rate than Rs. 42-12 which was decided to be the rental in the judgment of the 21st of December 1896. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohesh Chunder Dhal Vs. Satrughan Dhal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal343
Macnaghten, J.1. The only question on this appeal is, whether the Calcutta High Court was right in holding that lineal primogeniture is the rule of succession in the Dhalbhoom family, whose head-quarters are at Ghatsila. There were other questions raised in the suit, hut they have all been finally determined. In the Court of first instance the District Judge of Bankura seems to have come to the same conclusion. He found that the rule of succession in the family was lineal primogeniture 'in a limited form.' Ho did not, however, explain what he meant by that qualification, and no satisfactory explanation of it has been offered.2. The High Court, considering that the question was merely a question of fact, on which they agreed with the Lower Court, properly declined to give leave to appeal. This Board, however, under the circumstances recommended that special leave should be given. All the evidence that was adduced in the Lower Court was laid before their Lordships, and the case was very ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed WahiduddIn Vs. Hakiman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal278
Banerjee and Rampini, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant under Section 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing an arbitration award made without the intervention of any Court.2. It is not necessary to say anything more about the previous stages of this litigation than this, that, in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench in this case the case (1897) I. L. R. 25 Calc. 757. was sent back to the Court below to determine, upon evidence, whether the objections taken by the defendant against the validity of the award were made out or not.3. It has now been held by the Court below that some of the objection have been made out, and that the award is invalid by reason of its having been made after the revocation of the reference for good cause.4. Against this decision of the lower Court the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal, and it is argued on his behalf, first, that the Court below was wrong in disposing of the question of the validity ...
Tag this Judgment!Nando Lal Vs. Chutterput Sing
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal235
Sale, J.1. It has been the practice of this Court to consider applications to transmit decrees, not applications for execution, and there is no section which says that on an application to transmit for the purpose of execution in another Court, notice must go. It is only when an application is made for execution.2. But the only section under which an assignee can come in, is under Section 232 of the Code, and that section only provides for an application to the Court which passed the decree. There is no section under which an assignee can apply to transmit for execution to another Court. As the Code now stands, I submit, the assignee must come to the Court which passed the decree. At any rate, rather than run the risk of the judgment-debtor raising this point and incurring costs in the mofussil Courts, I ask in the first place for a notice to issue under Section 232 of the Civil Procedure Code.Sale, J.3. Very well, let this be treated as an application for execution under Section 232 o...
Tag this Judgment!Surja Pershad NaraIn Singh Vs. Reid
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal622
Ghoss and Brett, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the decree-holders, who are the appellants before as, for ascertainment and recovery of mesne profits due to them, the lands in respect of which such mesne profits were claimed having been decreed to them against the defendants, the judgment-debtors.2. There seems to have been a contest between the parties as to the principle upon which such mesne profits should be ascertained. The decree-holders apparently claimed the value of the produce of the lands which the judgment-debtors, during the period of their unlawful possession, actually received, while, on the other hand, the judgment-debtors contended that all that the decree-holders were entitled to receive was the rent at which they might have been able to let out the lands, if they had continued to be in possession, and had not been disturbed in such possession by the defendants.3. The Subordinate Judge did not go into the facts upon which any principle could be...
Tag this Judgment!Mohendro Nath Das Gupta Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal387
Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. There are two points upon which this Rule was granted--first, that the conviction and sentence under Section 411 of the Penal Code should be set aside on the ground that the evidence disclosed the commission of an offence under Section 489 (c) of the Penal Code, as recently amended, an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session; and next, that the petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the Inspector who had been called and examined as a witness by the Court. On the first point we are of opinion that the rule should be discharged. Offences under Sections 411 and 489 (c) are distinct offences and. therefore can be separately tried. Moreover, the offence under Section 411 was, under the facts found, committed before tin other offence alleged to hare been also committed.2. On the second ground, however, we think that the petitioner is entitled to an order in his favour. The District Magistrate attempts to justify his refusal to allow the accused to cross...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Koeri Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal385
Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. A Rule was granted in this case to consider whether the conviction and sentences should not be set aside on the ground that the joint trial of these petitioners for different offences, not committed in the same transaction, was not permitted by law. Of the three petitioners before us, one has been convicted under the Railway Act of unlawfully obstructing the railway by placing clods on the lines. The other two have been convicted under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code of rescuing him from lawful arrest. Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure declares: 'When more persons than one are accused of the same offence or of different offences committed in the same transaction, they may be charged and tried together or separately as the Court thinks fit; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall apply to all such charges.' Now Section 235 in regard to the joinder of different offences must be read with Section 239, and it is, no ...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Mani Boistabee Vs. Ram Kumar Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal239
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is a rule, calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Court below, complained of by the petitioner, should not be set aside.2. It appears that the plaintiffs, who are the opposite parties in this rule, brought a suit against the applicant in the Calcutta Small Cause Court, and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs, opposite parties, then made an application for a new trial, which was granted, the suit being allowed to be withdrawn under Section 373, C. P. C. with liberty to bring a fresh suit upon the same cause of action. The present rule was granted to show cause why this order should not be set aside. The grounds upon which the application was made are (i) that the order of the Small Cause Court Judges does not disclose any ground, such as is referred to in Section 373, C. P. C. upon which permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit upon the same cause of action has been granted; and (ii) that as in granti...
Tag this Judgment!Bhai Lal Chowdhry Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal417
Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. There is no ground for our interference in this matter in revision. Undoubtedly there was an occurrence. This has been found by the Subdivisional Magistrate and by the District Magistrate on appeal. It appears that, having reason to believe that certain persons accused of an offence had absconded, the Subdivisional Magistrate, after being unable to arrest them, issued a proclamation under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, at the same time, an order of attachment of their property under Section 88. In this respect the Subdivisional Magistrate's order was in accordance with law. In the course of the attachment an objection was raised by another person that the property which the police officer was attaching did not belong to the absconders. The police officer very properly referred to the patwari, who was present, and being assured that it was the property of the absconders, he proceeded to make the attachment. At this time a mob had assembled, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »