Kolkata Court May 1902 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.
Gopal Chunder Bose Vs. Kartick Chunder Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal716
Stanley, J.1. This action is brought by Kartick Chunder Dey against Gopal Chunder Bose and others to have a declaration that the plaintiff and certain of the defendants are entitled as representatives of the late Nilmoney Dey to be sebaits or superintendents of a pagoda, which was endowed by Nilmoney Dey to carry out the religious trusts created by his will and for the usual accounts and declarations. The plaintiff also applied that possession of the trust estate-should be delivered over to the representatives of Nilmoney Dey, and, if necessary, that a scheme should be framed for carrying out the trusts.2. Nilmoney Dey died on the 1st January 1839, having made a will dated the 15th March 1838, whereby, amongst other things, he made the following bequest: 'I give and bequeath Company's Rs. 20,000 for the religious worship at my house, a lower-roomed house in which the pagoda is established, and another house situated to the north of the pagoda, consisting of about five cottahs of ground...
Ratan Mahanti Vs. Khatoo Sahoo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal400
Pratt and Geidt, JJ.1. Ratan Mahanti and others, holders of a decree in the Court of Small Causes at Balasore, obtained an order, dated the 27th September 1901, directing that a robocari be sent to the Raja of Killa Mayoorbhunj through the Assistant Superintendent of the Tributary Mahals, Balasore, with a copy of the decree and of any order which may have been passed in execution of the same and a certificate of non-satisfaction. This order purports to have been passed under Sections 223 and 224 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The judgment-debtor has obtained this Rule calling upon the decree-holders to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. No cause has been shown. It appears that this Court has on more than one occasion decided that the Tributary Mahals of Orissa, of which Mayoorbhunj is one, do not form part of British India; and this ruling has been accepted by the Secretary of State for India in Council, as appears from p. 119 of Vol. I of Mr. Aitchison'...
Ranijulla Vs. Ishab Dhali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal610
Maclean, C.J.1. The question referred is. When an occupancy raiyat is dispossessed and the landlord has had no hand in the ouster, what is the period of limitation applicable? Is it twelve years or two years under Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act? In my opinion the period of twelve years applies, in the state of circumstances mentioned in the question. And if the case of Hara Kumar Nath v. Sheikh Nasaruddin (1900) 4 C. W. N. 665. decides the contrary, in my opinion, with all deference to the learned Judges who take the opposite view, that case was not rightly decided. I notice in that case that the learned Judges say: 'And we must take it that the original ouster was, if not in substance, in reality done with the assent of the landlord.' That was the finding.2. As regards any other points in the present case, the case must go back for their decision to the Division Bench which submitted it to us, with this expression of opinion upon the point actually referred.3. The a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›