Kolkata Court June 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.
Hassan Ali Vs. Gauzi Ali Mir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal179
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. A preliminary objection was taken to this appeal that the appeal was premature, and that it did not lie at the present juncture. The inclination of my opinion is, having regard to Sections 562 and 588 of the Code of Civil: Procedure and the nature of the order made in this ease, that an appeal would lie, but I express no final opinion upon that point, as it has not been pressed and the parties desire that we should deliver our opinion upon the real point in issue.2. The real point in issue is this: A compromise decree was passed in a suit brought by the present appellant, directing him to obtain khas possession of certain land by ousting the present respondent, and, in execution, he asked that the should be put into khas possession. The appellant in the Court below--I am taking the facts as found by the Court below, this being a second appeal--pleaded in execution 'that there was an -agreement between him and the respondent previous to the compromise decree t...
Monmohini Guha Vs. Banga Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal357
Brett and Mitra, JJ.1. This is an appeal by a caveatrix in a proceeding for the probate of a will propounded by the respondent, Banga Chandra Das, as the last will of one Sremanta Ram Das. Sremanta Ram died on the 27th January 1900, leaving him surviving a daughter, the caveatrix Monmohini, her minor son Hara Kumar Guha, Khettra Mohan Das, another grandson, by a deceased daughter, and a widow Pourani, alias Swarnalata, the legality of whose marriage with the deceased is, however, disputed, Banga Chandra, the propounded of the will, is the husband of the deceased. daughter of Srimanta Ram and father, of Khettra Mohan.2. The will is dated the 28th June 1889, and bears the attestation of a number of witnesses of whom Annada Charan Dutta verified the petition, which was presented on the 30th January 1901. Monmohini put in her Caveat on the 8th March 1901 alleging that the will propounded was false.3. The will purported to devise in equal shares the testator's estate to his two grandsons, K...
Dacca Loan Office Company Vs. Ananda Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal106
Brett and Geidt, JJ.1. The present appeal is against an order passed under the Indian Companies Act, VI of 1882, and it is preferred under Section 169 of that Act. A rule was also granted on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The appeal and the rule have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment.2. It seems that Purna Chandra Chakravarti, one of the depositors in the Dacca Loan Office Company, Limited, applied to the Civil Court under Section 131 of the Indian Companies Act for the winding up of this company. The ground on which he based his petition was that he was a depositor of more than Rs. 600 in the company; that hg had made a demand for Rs. 200, and that it had not been complied with within the time mentioned in the Act. He further stated that the company was in a very embarrassed state, that Rs. 83,000 due to the company had been barred lay limitation, and that Rs. 28,000 due to the depositors could not be paid ...
Prayag Kapri Vs. Shyam Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal138
Mitra and Pargiter, JJ.1. This appeal is based on a mortgage bond for Rs. 98-8, dated the 29th of Baisak 1303 (corresponding to the 27th of April 1896), which was executed by the defendants and their mother in favour of the plaintiff.2. At the trial in the Munsif's Court the defendants pleaded, first, full payment, secondly, that one of them had signed only a blank bond, and, thirdly, that the interest, 75 per cent., was exorbitant and by way of a penalty. The Munsif found the first two, pleas against the defendants, but allowed the third, and decreed the claim granting, interest on the mortgage sum at the rate fixed in the bond from the date of its execution, till the 15th of Pous 1304 only (that is, the 4th of January 1897) which was the date fixed in the bond for payment. He allowed interest at 18 per cent, per annum from that date till the date on which the suit was filed, and thereafter at six per cent, per annum till the date of realisation. On appeal the learned District Judge c...
Umesh Chandra Khasna Vis Vs. Golap Lal Mustafi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal233
Brett and Mitra, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this case brought a suit on a mortgage bond dated 9th Chaitro 1294 B.S. to recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 19,749. The original mortgage debt was Rs. 1,999, but by means of compound interest and interest it had swelled up to the sum claimed by the 23rd Sravan 1307, the date on which the suit was instituted. The due date under the bond was the month of Aswin 1295 B.S.2. The defendants pleaded that the claim of the plaintiff for interest was unjust, excessive and illegal; that they had never agreed to pay compound interest, and that the plaintiff could only recover the principal due under the bond with simple interest thereon up to date.3. By the bond the defendant stipulated to pay interest at Re. 1-12 per cent. per mensem and as security for the repayment of the loan they mortgaged lot Balahai, towji No. 199, in the Dinajpur Collectorate. The bond further contained the following clause--'and so long as the said amount is not wholly rep...
WajihuddIn and anr. Vs. Syed Mazhar Hossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1903
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.457
1. This is a very clear case. Under a batwara which took place between the plaintiffs, the defendant Mazhar Hossain, and certain other co-sharers, a certain dilapidated building described as peel khana (stable for elephants) fell to the share of the plaintiffs; and they brought this suit to recover possession thereof as against Mazhar Hossain. This person set up an occupancy-right and pleaded, that in execution of a decree for money against himself, his interest in the said peel khana had been sold up and purchased by his brother-in-law, one Hamid Rasool, but really for his own benefit, or in other words, Hamid Rasool was his benamdar, and that, therefore, the plaintiffs could not recover possession of the same.2. The learned Judge of the Court below has adopted the contention of the defendant in so far that Hamid Rasool was his benamdar. But he says at the same time that the building was in the occupation of Hamid Rasool within two years of the suit and that it must be taken that the ...
Magniram Vs. Mehdi HosseIn Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal95
Banerjee and Pargiter, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff appellant to recover a certain sum of money by way of contribution from the defendants 1st party. The main allegations upon which the suit is based are shortly these: That the predecessors in interest of the defendants 2nd party on the 15th of October 1881 mortgaged their share in four properties, Dighout Titaria, Kunda, Lakhan Dhanaman and Chhathu Dhanaman to one of the defendants 4th party for Rs. 8,000; that out of the mortgaged properties the first two were purchased on the 12th of January 1888 by the defendants 1st party, and the remaining two properties were purchased by the plaintiff at an execution sale on the 9th of July 1888; that subsequently the mortgagee, the defendant 4th party, having obtained a decree on his mortgage on the 26th of April 1892, caused the sale of the last two properties on the 23rd of May 1893, and the defendants 1st party purchased the same for Rs. 21,000,...
Surendra NaraIn Singh Vs. Hari Mohan Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal174
Banerjee and Pargiter, JJ.1. In this appeal, which arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant to obtain an injunction restraining the defendants from building an indigo factory on the land held by defendant No. 6 under the plaintiff, the question raised on behalf of the plaintiff appellant is whether the learned Judge in the Court of Appeal below was right in holding that the manufacture of indigo was an agricultural purpose.2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents contends that not only is the learned Judge below right in the view has taken that the manufacture of indigo is an agricultural purpose, but that the conclusion he has arrived at, that the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed, is incapable of being interfered with in second appeal, because it is based upon the finding of fact that the defendants have done nothing in violation of the conditions of the tenancy; and he further contends that the suit is also liable to dismissal on the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›