Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1904)ILR31Cal89
Brett and Mitra, JJ.1. This suit was brought by the Court of Wards on behalf of Ramratan Tewari, a ward of the Court, to recover from the defendant the amount due on a mortgage bond executed in favour of the guardian of the minor, Gauri Debi, who was also the executrix of the will of the minor's father, Shib Lal Tewari. This bond bears date 7th April 1888.2. In his defence the defendant pleaded that the suit could not be brought by the Court of Wards, first because Ramratan Tewari was a major, and secondly because Gauri Debi having taken out probate of the will and being the executrix appointed under the will was the only person legally entitled to sue. A third point was taken that by an agreement made by Gauri Debi with the defendant on 29th Falgoon, 1253 Maghi, whereby it was agreed that she should purchase certain landed property belonging to defendant for Rs. 40,000, and that the money due on mortgage bond in suit and certain other moneys should be accepted as earnest money for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1904)ILR31Cal249
Banerjee and Pargiter, JJ.1. In this appeal, which arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant to recover a certain sum of money due upon a chegue, two questions have been raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant: first, whether the Court of Appeal below was right in holding that the defendant No. 1 was not liable for the money which defendant No. 2 had obtained from the plaintiff on the presentation of a forged cheque, when defendant No. 2 presented the cheque; as the agent of the defendant No. 1; and, secondly, whether the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the defendant No. 2 was not the agent of the defendant No. 1, without considering the evidence of agency furnished by the fact of defendant No. 1 previously.2. Upon the first point the case of Young v. Drote (1827) 4 Bing. 253 is relied upon. That case, as Lord Macnaghten observes in Scholfield v. Earl of Londesborough [1896] A.C. 514, 'is a case which has excited as much diversity of opinion as any cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1904)ILR31Cal111
Banerjee and Pargiter, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff appellant, a minor represented by his mother and next friend, for obtaining' a declaration that the compromise decree in suit No. 35 of 1894 was not binding on the plaintiff, that the will of Ram Charan Singh, the plaintiff's great grandfather and the ekrarnamah of Sheoadhin, the plaintiffs grandfather are void and inoperative, and that Lachmi-Pershad, the grandfather's brother, was a trustee for the join-family composed of himself and his brother and their descendants; and for partition of the properties in dispute. The suit is brought against Lachmi Pershad and his male descendants as defendant first party, and Sheoadhin and his wife Parbati Kumari and his sons Balgobind Singh and Bacha Singh as defendants' second party. And the main allegations upon which it is based are that Ram Charan Singh, the great grandfather of the plaintiff who was a Hindu governed by the Benares School of Hind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1904)ILR31Cal557
Rampini and Handley, JJ.1. This is an appeal at the instance of Government against an order of discharge, dated the 14th February 1903, of one Madho Dhobi, who had been arrested by Inspector Hamilton of the Colootollah thanah under the provisions of Section 55(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on a charge under Section 109(c), that is, of having no ostensible means of subsistence or being unable to give a satisfactory account of himself.2. The accused was discharged by Bench of Honorary Magistrates on the ground that Inspector Hamilton had no authority to arrest him, as he was not an officer in charge of a police-station within the meaning of paragraphs (p) and (s) Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there being no declaration by Government declaring a thanah or police-station in Calcutta to be a police-station within the meaning of the Code. The Honorary Magistrates accordingly held that the accused was not properly before them.3. Mr. O'Kinealy, who appears on behalf of G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1904)ILR31Cal75
Ghose and Pratt, JJ.1. This is a suit upon two mortgage bonds said to have been executed by the late Achaibat Pershad Narayan Singh, one on the 7th Bysack 1293 corresponding to the 25th April 1886, for Rs. 5,000, the due date being the 11th November 1886, and the other on the 8th Jeyt 1293 corresponding to the 26th May 1886, for Rs. 2,000, the due date being the 9th January 1887.2. The plaint was presented to the Court on the 16th November 1898, the last date to save limitation as regards the first mentioned bond the 12th to 15th November being close holidays. The amount claimed with interest was Rs. 16,302 on the first bond, and Rs. 6,523 on the second bond. The plaint bore a stamp of Rs. 835 which would be correct if the aggregate claim had arisen on only one cause of action, but having regard to Section 17 of the Court-fees Act, the stamp was not sufficient, and on the 7th November the Court recorded this order: 'The plaintiff is to pay the deficit court-fees of Rs. 180 within two w...
Tag this Judgment!