Kolkata Court February 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.
Krishna Behary Sen Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal406
Henderson, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues for damages, which are laid at Rs. 5,000, for malicious prosecution. The grounds upon which the damages are based are (1) that he suffered pecuniary loss in consequence of having to spend money upon his defence in the prosecution, and (2) that he had been put to great annoyance and trouble of mind and loss of time.2. The suit was filed on the 19th November 1900, and the plaintiff died on the 8th September 1902, pending the hearing of the suit. Upon his death an application was made on behalf of his sons and legal representatives to have their names substituted in place of his upon the record, and that was done under an order of the 17th February 1903.3. It is now said that the present plaintiffs are unable to maintain this suit on the ground that the cause of action did not survive to them.4. So far as the claim for damages is based upon the injury to the plaintiff's reputation, and upon the annoyance and trouble of mind caused to him, it...
BepIn Chandra Biswas Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal452
Henderson, J.1. This is a suit against the Corporation of Calcutta, to recover damages for an alleged illegal distress, which took place on the 30th December 1901 and the 2nd January 1902. The facts alleged in the plaint are nearly all of them either admitted or not denied in the written statement of the defendant Corporation.2. An objection which was not taken in the written statement that the notice of suit served upon the Corporation under Section 634 of the Calcutta Municipal Act was insufficient was, afterwards, rightly as it appears to me, withdrawn.3. The circumstances under which that suit was brought are these: On the 4th March 1901 the plaintiff purchased from one Giris Chunder Dass a plot of bustee land in the 24-Pergannas in Ward No. 1 consisting of 10 cottahs and bounded on the north by Dhoniabagan Road, on the west by a lane and on the east by a common passage, which had been reserved by the vendor. This plot was a portion of what had been No. 4 Jadu Nath Mitter's Lane, o...
Kokil Singh Vs. Edal Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal385
Brett and Mitra, JJ.1. The appeal arises out of proceedings taken in execution of a mortgage decree, which had been obtained on the 19th December 1900 by Pokhan Singh and others against the mortgagors and Edal Singh, a puisne mortgagee, who had obtained a decree on his mortgage and had brought to sale and had purchased some of the mortgaged properties. The mortgaged properties were put up for sale en the 19th March 1902, and one of them was purchased by the present appellant. The sale was confirmed and possession was afterwards delivered on the 4th June 1902.2. On the 21st June 1902 two applications were made to the Court executing the decree by the judgment-debtor, Edal Singh, the respondent in the present appeal. One under Section 108, Civil Procedure Code, was to have the decree set aside, the other under Section 311, Civil Procedure Code, was to have the sale pet aside, In support of both applications, allegations of fraud were made against the decree-holders. The Subordinate Judge...
Hari Singh Vs. Jadu Nandan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal542
Stephen, J.1. The judgment just delivered, sufficiently supports the conclusion at which this Court has arrived. But I feel myself bound to express doubts, which I feel, as to the soundness of the judgment in the case of Queen-Empress v. Narottamdas Motiram (1889) I.L.R. 13 Bom. 681, to which we have referred. The matter is of some importance because for reasons we have indicated the English law on the subject of gaming does not seem to be applicable to India, and the Bombay case is, I believe, the only one decided' in India, which deals with the meaning of gaming. The Gaming Act is concerned only with gaming, and has nothing to do with betting or wagering, which may be considered synonymous terms. What is the difference between gaming and betting? The Bombay case apparently regards gaming as betting on the result of a game, which is also a contest. The distinction between the two things is based on the scientific or historical meanings of gaming as given in standard works, to which th...
Durga Prasad Kalwar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal910
Ghose, J.1. The petitioners in this case have been convicted under Section 11 of the Bengal Gambling Act, and sentenced to a fine. The question raised before me is whether the place where the gambling took place is a public place within the meaning of the said section. It appears, upon the map filed in this case as also upon the evidence, that the place where the gambling was held is an osara, which is enclosed on all sides, there being, however, doors opening towards the road, and there being what is called a platform between the said osara and the road. The place in question is a part of a building, which is the private property of certain individuals. It is used during the day as a shop, but not so in the night; and the gambling in question took place after midnight on a certain day. It appears that people were standing on the roadside and looking at the game that was going on inside the room. Some of these people, and others, who were standing inside the osara, were arrested; and t...
Chandan Singh Vs. Ramdeni Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal499
Stevens and Mitra, JJ.1. The plaintiff-respondent obtained a decree for rent against the defendants-appellants on the 6th December, 1901. The defendants unsuccessfully questioned in the first Court the rate of rent on the basis of which the plaintiff had t laid his claim and they preferred an appeal which was decided in their favour on the 2nd June, 1902. In the meantime and before the decision of the Appellate Court, the plaintiff brought the holding to sale in execution of his decree. The sale took place on the 14th March 1902 and it was confirmed on the 22nd April, The plaintiff afterwards took possession of the property purchased by him. Thereafter an application was made, by the defendants under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the sale set aside.2. Their main contention was that the decree under which the sale had taken place had been practically reversed and that they were entitled to have the sale set aside on that ground.3. The Munsif gave effect to their con...
Abinash Chandra Aditya Vs. Ananda Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal424
Ghose and Stephen, JJ.1. The petitioners before us have been convicted of offences under Sections 147, 353, read with Section 149 and Section 379, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and(upon an application made by them to this Court, a rule was granted to show cause why the conviction and sentences should not be set aside upon the grounds--first, that the warrant under which the Commissioner appointed by the Civil Court is said to have acted did not authorize him to deliver possession of the property to the decree-holder and, second, that, upon the date that possession was attempted to be delivered, the warrant was a time expired warrant.2. So far as the first-mentioned ground is concerned, we are of opinion, after hearing learned Counsel on both sides, that it must fail, because there is distinct evidence upon this record--evidence that has been accepted by the Sessions Judge on appeal--that, in addition to the parwana issued by the Civil Court for 'the ascertainment of mesne p...
Gopal Lal Vs. Benarasi Pershad Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal428
Rampini and Geidt, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one brought to enforce a registered mortgage bond, dated the 23rd May, 1885, for Rs. 2,000, executed by two brothers Rachha Singh and Rang Lal Singh and by the son of Rang Lal Singh in favor of the father of the plaintiffs. The Subordinate Judge has given the plaintiffs a decree. The defendant No. 5, who is the auction purchaser of the properties 1 to 3 only, appeals.2. The grounds of his appeal are (1) that the suit is barred by the rule of res judicata; (2) that the mortgage having been executed by two only of the members of an undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law and not by a third member, viz., a third brother named Puchhya Singh, is void; (3) that the defendant-appellant is not precluded from contending that it is void; (4) that the mortgage being void, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a charge on the mortgaged property, and (5) that Puchhya Singh is a necessary party to the suit. It appears t...
Kasi Sundar Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal419
Ghose and Stephen, JJ.1. These rules relate to certain orders made by the Deputy Magistrate of Natore under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure, confirmed, as they have been, by the District Magistrate of Rajshahye in appeal. The petitioner in Rule No. 970 is one Kasi Sundar Roy, and the petitioners in the other Rule No. 10.14 are Nilu Pramanik, Sukh Chand Pramanik, Ruplal Pramanik, Basna Pramanik and Kalu Sardar, who are said to be, the employees or under-raiyats of the said Kasi Sundar Roy. This person appears to be a zemindar. He owns three villages--Patal, Dakhinpore and Basudebpur--and the case which was made by the complainants, who are some of the tenants of Basudebpur, before the Deputy Magistrate was that various acts of oppression were committed by the petitioners in Rule No. 1014 under the orders and connivance of the zemindar Kasi Sundar Roy, the object of such oppression being to compel the raiyats to pay enhanced rents. According to the case for the complainants and a...
Perdash Lal Vs. Rameshwar Nath Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal561
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh, dated 17th May 1900. The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of mouzah Shakkerpur, pergannah Kunda, from which they say the defendant No. 1 dispossessed them in Assar 1298 Fusli, i.e., June 1891 or 1948 Sambat. They aver that the mouzah was given by Raja Moni Nath Singn, the ancestor of the defendant Raja Rameshwar Nath Singh, to one Janki Misser in the year 1831 as a khairat bishanprit grant, that the gift was that of an absolute estate, that the mouzah was in 1875 leased in mokurari by Bhat Misser, the grandson, and by Jai Kuner, the daughter-in-law, of Janki to one Lall Ram Garreri, who sold the mokurari to the plaintiffs in 1886 and 1888, that they entered into possession and that, as the defendant No. 1 has dispossessed them, they are entitled to recover possession the defendant's pleas were that the gift to Janki Misser was no...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »