Kolkata Court May 1902 Judgments
Abed Mollah Vs. Diljan Mollah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal459
Pratt and Geidt, JJ.1. In this case what is described as the jama of the judgment-debtor was advertized for sale. By this we understand that what was put up for sale was the jote or holding of a raiyat.2. An under-tenant or sub-raiyat of the judgment-debtor applied under Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure and was permitted to pay in the decretal amount, etc., as provided by that section.3. The question before us in this rule is whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to allow the deposit and to set aside the sale.4. In the Full Bench case of Paresh Nath Bingha v. Nabogopal Chattopadhya (1) the question for decision was whether a mortgagee can come in under Section 310A; and it was held that he could. The Full Bench did not decide, nor was it the case before them, that an under-raiyat could come in under that section. In the unreported case of Wazaddm v. Nur Bux, which was referred to this Court under Section 617, Civil Procedure Code, and which reference was decided on the 13...
Tag this Judgment!Fuzlur Rahman Vs. Krishna Prasad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal614
Stevens and Harington, JJ.1. The petitioner sued under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for obtaining possession of a hat from which, he alleged, he had been illegally dispossessed by the opposite party. He sets forth in his plaint that he held possession in right of a dur-ijara for a term of years of a certain hat within boundaries specified at foot of the plaint and that the possession which he had held was by collecting tolls, rents, and. the like. He alleged that on a certain day the defendant had by wrongful show of force realised the tolls from the hat in question in spite of his remonstrances and so illegally dispossessed him, and he prayed that under the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act possession of the Mt might be given to him as before.2. The Munsiff held, on the authority of the Full Bench case of Fadu Jhala v. Gour Mohun Jhala (1892) I. L. R. 19 Calc. 544., that, inasmuch as the hat appears en the face of the plaint to be an incorporeal right to colle...
Tag this Judgment!Rahimuddi Sirkar Vs. Loll Meah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal696
Ghose and Geidt, JJ.1. The question raised in this case is whether the action of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. It appears that the plaintiff had brought a suit against the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, as also against defendant No. 4, for the recovery of a certain sum of money. The suit was decreed against the defendant No. 4, but dismissed against the other defendants. In execution of that decree, a certain property was attached by the plaintiff, the decree-holder, as belonging to defendant No. 4, whereupon an objection was preferred by and on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, upon the ground that the property belonged to them. The objection was allowed by the-executing Court. Against that order, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff; but the Appellate Court held that the order made by the lower Court being an order under Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal lay to the higher Court, and accordingly it was d...
Tag this Judgment!Shoilojanund Ojha Vs. Peary Charan Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal470
Stevens and Harington, JJ.1. The question which we have to decide in this appeal is whether or not any offerings which may in future be made to a Hindu idol may he attached in execution of a decree for money against the idol.2. The Courts below have both held that such offerings are attachable,--the Court of first instance probably merely on the around that similar attachments had been made before; the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that the right to receive offerings is a saleable property attaching to the temple, and the judgment-debtor has a disposing power over the profits accruins(sic)3. The fact that similar attachments had been made be(sic) of course nothing to the purpose. The real question is, whether the attachment is legal with reference to the provisions of Section 266, Code of Civil Procedure. The offerings in question are, it appears, entirely voluntary and therefore entirely uncertain, although it may be, as the Lower Appellate Court says, that an estimate may be ma...
Tag this Judgment!Kassim Mamoojee Vs. Isuf Mahomed Sulliman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal509
Sale, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover the amount due under nine several judgments obtained by him against the defendant and others in the Supreme Court of Mauritius.2. The judgments are of various dates, from the 8th February 1898 to the 29th March of the same year.3. It is, I think, clear that these judgments are foreign judgments within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code, and that the Supreme Court of Mauritius is a Court which is established by an order of Her Majesty in Council, and, as appears on the face of the judgments, that the defendant did not appear and that judgment was entered up against him in his absence. It appears further that the Court was satisfied that for the purposes of these suits the defendant was properly represented by one Allam, who was found to be carrying on business in Mauritius in partnership with the defendant, and I think that I must take it that the Court was satisfied that there was sufficient authority in Allam, as the representative of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chowdhry Kesei Sahay Vs. Giani Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal626
Maclean, C.J.1. This case comes before me Under Section 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of a difference of opinion between Mr. Justice Ghose and Mr. Justice Brett. The facts are not in dispute, and the point is really a very short one. Certain property in certain execution proceedings was put up for sale on the 22nd May 1900 and purchased, as I understand, by the decree-holder. On the 25th May the Munsiff held that there was no sale by reason of certain irregularities, a on the 26th May the judgment-debtor deposited in Court decretal amount with cost Section On the 29th May the execution case was struck off. The decree-holder, the purchaser, appealed, and on the 2nd August 1900 the order of the Munsiff setting aside the sale was reversed and the sale was held to be a good one. The judgment-debtor filed a second appeal against that decision on the 15th August 1900. On the 5th September 1900 that appeal was dismissed Under Section 551 of the Code. On the i2th September an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Gooroo Das Mustafi Vs. Sarat Chunder Mustafi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal699
Pratt, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for the recovery of property with mesne profits. The facts are admitted and the case depends upon the construction of the will of Sarbeswar Mustafi, dated the 3rd November, 1863. He died on the 13th November, 1863, leaving a widow (Taramoni), a brother (Radhajiban), and a deceased brother's son (Lakshmi Das). At the time of Sarbeswar's death, Lakshmi had three sons--Gurudas, Purna, and Umesh,--who are the defendants in this suit. Subsequently, i.e., in November, 1865, Lakshmi married a second wife, by whom he had three sons--Sarat, Hem, and Manmatha--the last of whom died in December, 1887. Lakshmi Das died in May, 1887, and Taramoni in January, 1892. The plaintiffs are Sarat, Hem, and their mother as heiress of Manmatha, while the three sons of Lakshmi by his first wife are the defendants.2. It appears that Taramoni executed a deed of gift of the property in favour of Guru, Puma, and Umesh, and it is admitted that the deed is void at her death....
Tag this Judgment!Mukund Koeri Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Chota Nagpur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal638
Hill, J.1. I am not disposed to interfere with the order against which this appeal has been preferred. The really important question is as to the authority of the Court of Wards to assume charge of the person and property of the lunatic, and upon that question I think the appellant is not entitled to succeed. The form of the order, although it may be open in some particulars to exception, is not, I think, under the circumstances of the present case, a matter of any moment.1. Upon the main question the contention for the appellant was that the authority of the Court of Wards to take upon itself the management of the property of a lunatic being dependent on the nature of the property and being restricted to property which is subject to the payment of Government revenue, it was not competent to the Civil Court in the present case to place the lunatic's property in charge of the Court of Wards, inasmuch as it consists wholly of a jagir which is held under the Maharaja of Chota Nagpur and i...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chuni Lal Oswal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal507
Stephen, J.1. The question now raised is whether witnesses appearing in accordance with an order made under Section 36 of the Insolvent Debtors Act, 1848, are entitled to be represented by Counsel. In an ordinary case a witness has, of course, no right to be represented. The differences, however, between the position of witnesses appearing in an ordinary cause, and the position of those appearing in the present proceedings, seem to me too weak for any sound argument to be based on the analogy between them. Here witnesses have, with perfect propriety, been cross-examined by Counsel to show that they have been guilty of serious fraud and conspiracy. I cannot think that the law intends that they should not have any chance of professional assistance to make an answer to such charges: the more so as it is much harder for the Court to protect their interests than it would be in an ordinary case. I am therefore glad to find that the matter has been already dealt with in the case of In re Nurs...
Tag this Judgment!Frederick Peacock Vs. Madan Gopal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal428
Maclean, C.J.1. The question referred to us is whether a vesting order made under the Insolvency Act (11 and 12 Vict. Clause 21) has or has not the effect of giving the Official Assignee priority over the claim of a judgment-creditor in respect of property attached at the latter's instance previous to the passing of such order.2. I am not sure that the question would not have been better framed, if it had been 'whether a judgment-creditor has priority over the Official Assignee in respect of property attached by him previous to the passing of the vesting order,' but the distinction is not of much importance.3. The reference has arisen from a difference of opinion in the case of J. B. Miller v. Lukhlmani Debi (1901) I. L. R, 28 Calc. 419, on the one hand, and of Soobul Chunder Law v. Bussik Latt Miller (1888) I. L. R. 15 Calc. 202, on the other.4. It is worthy of immediate notice that the latter case was not brought to the attention of the Court which decided the case of A. B. Miller v....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »