Kolkata Court December 1904 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.
Ghana Kanta Mahanta Vs. Musammat Gerela and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1904
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.550
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance claimed by a Hindu woman on behalf of her minor child, said to have been begotten by the defendant. An application had been made by the woman before the Magistrate under Section 48 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but that officer disallowed the application. Subsequently, the present suit was brought in the Civil Court.2. The Court of Appeal below has found that the child is the illegitimate child of the defendant and has, accordingly, given a decree for maintenance.3. It has been contended on behalf of the defendant, the appellant before us, that the right of an illegitimate child to claim maintenance against the putative father is but the creature of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the order of the Magistrate disallowing maintenance is conclusive, and no suit lies in the Civil Court for the same matter, and that the Hindu law does not authorize maintenance being granted to illegitimate children. And the learned vakil has re...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Annoda Charan Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1904
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.662
Brett, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for arrears of rent of three plots of land. Money-rent was claimed in respect of two of the plots and rent in kind in respect of the third. There was also a claim for the usual testes.2. The Court of first instance decreed the entire claim bat on appeal the lower Appellate Court has modified the decree of the Court of first instance by disallowing: the claim for cesses in respect of the plot of land for which rent was claimed in kind. The Subordinate Judge gives as his reason for disallowing that part of the claim for cesses that there is no provision in the law for the payment of cesses when rent is payable in kind and there is no proof on behalf of the plaintiff of any agreement to pay such cesses.3. On behalf of the appellant it is sor tended that the Subordinate Judge is in error in suppesing that the law does not contemplate that cesses should be paid by the tenants in the cases of lands held on rents ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›