Kolkata Court December 1903 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.
Punna Bibee Vs. Radha Kissen Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal476
Sale, J.1. The plaintiff in this case seeks to establish her right to a share in certain property belonging to her husband and for partition.2. The suit is against her husband Kartick Dass Khettry, and his father Radha Kissen Dass Khettry and also certain assignees of mortgages executed by both father and son and the defence is that the suit is not maintainable. The plea is in the nature of a demurrer, and it is therefore necessary to examine shortly the allegation upon which the claim is based. It appears that the property, the subject-matter of this suit, was originally joint family property, the family being governed by the Mitakshara Law. A partition was effected between various members of the family, and the result of the partition was that the property 18, Mullick Street--the property in suit--was allotted to Radha Kissen Dass Khettry as his separate property. After this Radha Kissen married, and a son, Kartick, was born. It appears that Radha Kissen executed a mortgage in respec...
Ramani Pershad NaraIn Singh Vs. Mahanth Adaiya Gossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal380
Banerjee and Harington, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the decision of the question whether the rent payable by the plaintiff was Rs. 30-0-6 as contended for by the plaintiff. the Record of Rights, or was Rs. 13-8 annas as contended for by the plaintiff.2. The defendant urged entry in the Record of Rights was correct. The first Court gave effect to that defence and dismissed the suit, but upon appeal by the first Court's decision and given the plaintiff a decree, holding that the rent was Rs. 13-8 as alleged by the plaintiff.3. Against that decree of the lower Appellate Court, defendant No. 2 has preferred this second appeal. At the hearing of the appeal the learned vakil for the plaintiff-respondent took a preliminary objection that no appeal lay from the decision of the learned Judge below, who heard the case as a Special Judge, the decision appealed against being a decision settling a rent within the meaning of Sub-sect...
Hari Mohan Misser Vs. Surendra NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal301
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. Notwithstanding, the fact that, having regard to Section 7 of the Court-fees Act, VII of 1870, Sub-section 4, the value of this suit was fixed at Rs. 1,500, I think it is open to the petitioner, having regard to the nature of the relief sought, to show what was the real value of the subject-matter in the case. It is perhaps a little difficult, where a perpetual injunction is asked for against a person carrying on a business such as the manufacture of indigo to restrain him from erecting buildings which are essential to that business, to appreciate exactly what the real value of the subject-matter may be. As I have said before, incompetent to the petitioner to show what the real value was.2. I agree with the criticism addressed to us on behalf of the, respondent, that many o the items mentioned in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition cannot be included in the value of the subject-matter of the dispute. Bat Rs. 7,000 is said to have bee...
Falkumari Vs. Ghanshyam Misra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal511
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Purnesh dismissing a suit on the ground of the plaint being insufficiently stamped. The suit is one to establish the plaintiff's right to certain property and for a perpetual injunction restraining its sale, as the property of the defendant No. 2. It is, therefore, a suit of the nature referred to in Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The Subordinate Judge has pointed out that in certain cases decided by the Allahabad, Madras and Bombay High Courts, a suit of this kind has been held to be one coming under Article 17, Schedule II of the Court Fees Act and therefore subject to a Court-fee duty of Rs. 10 only. He has, however, followed two rulings of this Court, viz., Ahmed Mirza Saheb v. Thomas (1886) I.L.R. 13 Calc. 162 and Modhusudun Koer v. Rakhal Chunder Roy (1887) I.L.R. 15 Calc. 104, according to which a suit of this nature is one in which consequential relief is prayed for and theref...
Jogeshwar Roy and Vs. Raj NaraIn Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal195
Francies W. Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit by a builder and contractor, and the object of it is to recover the balance of a bill, which he says is due to him for the work done in relation to certain repairs and building on the defendant's premises No. 15-3, Gopal Lall Tagore's Road in Baranagar. The defence is that the suit is barred by the statute of limitation, to which the plaintiff replies--I will quote his own pleading from paragraph 10--'More than three years have, elapsed since the additional works were completed, but the plaintiff's claim for the said balance or sum of Rs. 8,866-2-9 due to him, as in the last preceding paragraph hereof stated, is not barred by limitation, inasmuch as the defendant on the 18th June 1898, made an acknowledgment of his liability in writing signed by him.' The only question on this appeal argued before us is whether the document in question is an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1877, so a...
Deep NaraIn Singh Vs. Dietert
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal274
Hill, J.1. That leave was given under Clause 12 of the Letter Patent also shows that the suit was not on a foreign judgment.2. The award was put in as evidence which would not be necessary if the suit was on a foreign judgment. The award having been filed in the Court in England became a record of that Court, and no proof of the award was necessary. The suit is a suit on the award on which an order under Section 12 of the English Arbitration Act has been made. What the effect of that order is, is a different question.3. In paragraph 8 of the plaint we state, which statement remains unchallenged because the defendant allowed judgment to go by default, how a part of our cause of action, arose within the limits of the Original Jurisdiction of this Court and then leave under Clause 12 has been obtained. A demand followed by a promise to pay the amount of the award in Calcutta, is a cause of action in Calcutta.4. I rely upon the oases cited by the learned Advocate-General for the definition...
Jagamba Goswamini Vs. Ram Chandra Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal314
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Officiating Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur. The suit out of which the appeal arises is one brought to establish the right of the plaintiff, as shebait, to recover possession of certain land alienated, by one of his predecessors in favour of the predecessor of the defendants so long ago as the 17th Bysack 1227, or 28th April 1820, that is upwards of 80 years ago. The plaintiff contends that the land is debutter and that his predecessor had no right to make a gift of it as brahmottar land in favour of the defendants' predecessor.2. The lower Courts have found the land to be debutter. They have accordingly given the plaintiff a decree.3. The defendants now appeal and on their behalf it is contended (i) that the suit is barred by limitation, and (ii) that the lower Courts were wrong in admitting in evidence a document described in the lower Appellate Court's judgment as the list of 1178. We need say no more with re...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›