Kolkata Court April 1902 Judgments
Soshi Bhusan Ghose Vs. Gonesh Chunder Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal500
Pratt and Geidt, JJ.1. The plaintiff and defendants, who are nearly related, live in a two-storeyed house of ten rooms, five on each floor. The plaintiff oooupies two rooms on the groundfloor and two rooms on the first floor, while each of the three defendants oooupies one room on the groundfloor and one room on the first floor. There is a staircase inside the house loading to the roof past the first floor. The plaintiff's case was that this staircase was the joint property of himself and the defendants, and that the defendants had obstructed it, so that he was unable to obtain access either to his rooms on the first floor or to the roof, and h there ore, prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defend-ants from continuing the obstruction. The case of the defendant No 1, who alone contested the suit, was that there had been a pardon among the members of the family, and that at this partition the staircase had been allotted not to the plaintiff but to the three defendants, and ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kalu Mal Khetri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal606
Maclean, C.J.1. In my opinion the question submitted to us ought to be answered in the negative. I agree with the views expressed in the cases of The Empress v. Nuddiar Chand Shaw (1881) I. L. R. 6 Calc. 832. and with that expressed in the case of In the matter of Nomullu Akond (1882) 11 C. L. R. 416. I think it would be difficult to hold, having regard to the language of the section, especially to the words 'such fine shall be recoverable from such manufacturer or vendor, notwithstanding that such a breach may have been owing to the default or carelessness of the servant or other persons employed by him,' that the servant or the person employed can be properly held liable.2. With respect to the cases which take an opposite view, and with all respect to the opinions expressed in the case of Empress v. Baney Madhub Shaw (1881) I. L. R. 8 Calc. 207., which followed that decided by Sir Richard Couch C.J., and Glover J., in the case of Ishur Chunder Shaha (1873) 19 W. R. Cr. 34., it is suf...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Ahwad HosseIn Vs. Mahomed Askari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal726
Maclean, C.J.1. In my opinion this case is virtually governed by the Full Bench decision to which reference has been make, viz., the case of Dwarka Nath Mondal v. Beni Madhab Banerjee (1901) I. L. R. 28 Calc. 652. The only distinction between that case and the present is whether, as the case before us deals with that of a Mofussil and not of a Presidency Magistrate, Section 437 of the Code makes any difference. That section, it will be remembered, does not touch Presidency Magistrates. I expressed in my judgment in the above Full Bench case a doubt as to whether there is any such difference, and after having had the advantage of Clearing the case argued by the learned vakils, who have appeared, I do not think that Section 437, which is an enabling section, by implication, takes, away the jurisdiction which, I think, is vested in the Magistrate in a case of this class to hear the complaint again. That to my mind disposes of the point referred.2. But there is one point to which I should ...
Tag this Judgment!Georgucopulas Vs. Georgucopulas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal619
Stephen, J.1. In this case on the proceedings of divorce and petition for judicial separation the wife seeks to make her husband liable for her costs. The husband and wife in this case are Greeks, domiciled in Greece and married at Alexandria.2. It is contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to act in the matter, since the English law applicable in such cases does not apply here.3. I think, however, it is plain under Section 7 of the Divorce Act that this is a mistaken view. Under that section I am to act and give relief on principles and rules existing in England. The breadth of these terms seems to me to indicate that I have power to make such an order as is now sought for.4. In considering the substantial question before me it has to be borne in mind that the question of whether the wife is or is not to have her costs depends upon the property which the wife may be supposed to have. If either under the Married Woman's Property Act in England, or under the Succession Act here, i...
Tag this Judgment!Joginee Mohun Chatterjee Vs. Bhoot Nath Ghosal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal654
Ameer Ali, J.1. The circumstances which have given rise to this suit are shortly as follows. One Nobin Chander Gangooly, who was at one time a member of the Subordinate Judicial Service, and after his retirement from office as Subordinate Judge, had taken to the more profitable business of a money-lender, advanced to the defendant Rs. 1,000 upon the bond which forms the basis of the present action.2. Mr. J. N. Chatterjee is now acting as Receiver to the estate of Nobin Chander Gangooly, and as such Receiver he has brought the present action for the amount claimed to be due under the bond.3. The bond Which is dated the 10th of October 1896 is a registered document and purports to hypothecate two pieces of property as security for the debt.4. The defendant, a Bengali youth, who gives his age as 22 or 23, denies having received full consideration upon the bond, and he practically states that he was induced by people, who were more or less in league with Nobin Chander Gangooly, to enter in...
Tag this Judgment!Lalu Sahu and anr. Vs. Ghunaria Uraon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1902
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.381
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action for recovery of possession of a parcel of land in the village S.O.S. which at one time formed the property of two brothers Jadupat and Madhu-pat. Jaduput died in October 1885 and left a widow Ahila-Koer, who died in 1903. Madhupat died in 1893, and left a widow Sham Koer and two sons Kamalapat and Indrapat. Sham Koer died in 1897. On the 31st October 1903, the plaintiffs took a zeri-peshgi of the entire village from Kamalpat and Indrapat and now seek to recover possession of the disputed lands on the allegation that they were in possession as usufructuary mortgagees down to 1905 when they were ousted as the result of a. Criminal case. According to their case, upon the death of Jadupat the whole property passed by survivorship to Madhupat and upon, the death of the latter his two sons became entitled to the whole of it. The defendants cm the other hand resisted the claim on the ground that Jadupat and Madhupat wo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chuni Lal Oswal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal503
Stephen, J.1. In this case there is an order under Section 36 and a rule under Section 26. It is argued that both of these are bad. In the first place, it is said that proceedings cannot take place under any part of Section 36, until after the day appointed for 'The hearing. I cannot agree with this contention, and it seems to me that the limitation relating to the appointed day is confined to the first part of Section 36, and that 'the words' and it shall also be lawful for the Court on those or any other occasions' are intended to receive a very wide application. I think the Court has power to proceed under this section as soon as there is an insolvent.2. It has been further argued before me that the Court cannot proceed under Section 36 without' an application on the part of an assignee or by an admitted or established creditor. This contention also, I think, is unsound whether we take the words of the section itself or whether we take the purpose for which it was framed.3. As regar...
Tag this Judgment!Monmohiney Dassee Vs. Radha Kristo Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal543
Ameer Ali, J.1. This matter come before me under Sections 278 and 280 of the Civil Procedure Code, viz., the provisions which relate to claims to attached property on the ground that it is not the property of the judgment-debtor.2. A suit was brought by Sreemutty Monmohiney Dassee against Radha Kristo Dass in December 1900 for a sum of Rs. 2,000 alleged to have been lent by her to Radha Kristo Dass.3. The suit was decided substantially ex parte, and in execution of that decree Sreemutty Monmohiney Dassee attached three pieces of Government securities, which form the subject-matter of the claim in the present proceedings.4. These Government promissory notes had been taken to the bank for certain purposes, to which I shall presently refer, and the order for attachment was taken out and given effect to in the bank. Sreemutty Panna Lall Dassee thereupon put in a claim under Section 278 of Act XIV of 1882, alleging that the securities belonged to her and not to the judgment-debtor. Mr. Just...
Tag this Judgment!Brojendra Nath Mullick Vs. Luckhimoni Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal595
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an action by an attorney of this Court upon a promissory note dated the 15th of December 1897 executed by one Mutty Lall Paul, since deceased.2. Mutty Lall Paul died on the 2nd of January 1898, and the suit is brought against his heirs and representatives for the amount of the promissory note, viz. Rs. 5,000. The plaintiff's case is that he acted as Mutty Lall Paul's attorney from February 1893 until his death, that he helped him in discovering a forged release and in other ways assisted him in obtaining a decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Alipore declaring the said release to be a forgery, and that in recognition of his Work in connection with these matters Mutty Lall Paul executed the promissory note.3. In his evidence-in-chief he said in distinct terms that the amount of Rs. 5,000 was a reward to him, that he had demanded Rs. 10,000, but the deceased fixed it at Rs. 5,000.4. The promissory note was prepared in his office and written by one of hi...
Tag this Judgment!Siddessury Dassee Vs. Janardan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal557
Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit by a childless Hindu widow claiming arrears of maintenance and future maintenance out of certain property, which the defendant has inherited from his father and her father-in-law. The defendant is a brother-in-law of the plaintiff. The plaintiff about the year 1870 married one Nabadip, who died in 1872. Nabadip and the defendant were the sons of one Buddun, who died in 1888, and the defendant was his heir and inherited his ancestral property. There is no question as to its having been self-acquired estate. There is some dispute as to what occurred after the death of Nabadip; The plaintiff says that she was a dependent member of Buddun's family up to the time of the death of the latter in 1888; that, for about two years after that she was supported by the defendant; that she was then turned out of her father-in-law's house, and that she now lives in her father's house.2. The defendant says-that the plaintiff left Buddun's, that is her father-in-law's house...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›