Kolkata Court March 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.
Baldeo Parshad Sahu Vs. A.B. Miller
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal667
Brett and Mitrta, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs to recover the sum of Rs. 14,000, the price of certain indigo-cakes and interest thereon at 12 per cent. per annum from the 12th March 1898 to the 2nd April 1900, amounting to Rs. 3,458. The plaintiffs, Babu Baldeo Parshad Shahu and others, are the members of a firm of money-lenders in the town of Mozufferpore. Defendant No. 1 is the Official Assignee in charge of the bankrupt estate of Messrs. Moran & Co., late merchants in Calcutta. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are members of that firm, and defendant No. 5 is Mr. Robert Wilson, the late proprietor of Jaintpoor, alias Pupri, Indigo Factory in the district of Mozufferpore.2. In order to carry on the business of the factory Mr. Wilson borrowed at various times sums of money from Chowdhry Mahadeo Pershad, and on the 22nd September 1891 he executed two mortgages of the factory, its outworks and produce, in favour I of Chowdhry Mahadeo Pershad to c...
Gauri Shankar Vs. Maida Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal516
Brett and Mitra, JJ.1. It appears that the opposite party in this Rule made an application under Section 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Patna to have a certain award, which had been made without the intervention of the Court on the 21st November 1902, filed in Court. The present petitioner objected. Issues were framed, evidence on both aides was gone into, and finally, when the case was being argued, the opposite party applied under Section 373 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the application without permission to (sic) fresh one. The Subordinate Judge allowed the application (sic) the 2nd paragraph of Section 373 of the Code, and directed that the suit might be withdrawn, without permission to bring a fresh suit.2. The petitioner afterwards applied to this Court and obtained a Rule in the following terms on the opposite party, to shew cause why the order of the Subordinate Judge mentioned in the petition should not be set aside on...
TamizuddIn Vs. Ashrub Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal647
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. I regret that in this case I am unable to follow the ruling in Bhagabati Churn Roy v. Luton Mondal (1902) 7 C.W.N. 218. I do not think the case is governed by Article 3 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act. The suit is one for the establishment of title and recovery of possession it cannot be regarded as merely a suit for possession, under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. I agree with the referring Judges that the plaintiffs being non-occupancy raiyats, who have apparently been allowed by their landlords to hold over after the expiry of the term for which the and was leased to them, have a good title to the land, entitling them to recover possession of it against any one, who is not shown to have a better title than themselves. Here the defendants are mere trespassers. As I concur in the reasoning and conclusion pf the referring Judges, I do not think it necessary to say more. I may also say I have read Mr. Justice Ghose's judgment, in which I al...
Krishna Kamini Debi Vs. Dino Mony Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal658
Prinsep, J.1. A suit for partition was brought by Jagat Chander Munshi, predecessor of defendants 8 and 9, in which the other co-sharers were made defendants, and in the plaint the plaintiff admitted that the Biswas defendants had a share in the property.2. At an execution sale, a 1/12th share, being one-half of what the Biswas defendants claimed to have held, was sold on the 10th February 1893 and was bought by the plaintiff who, at a private sale, purchased also the remaining portion of the share on the 6th July of the same year.3. On the 19th July the defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who were co-sharers of the property under partition, put in a written statement, in which they denied that the Biswas defendants had any share.4. On the 16th February 1894, what is termed a preliminary decree was passed by the Court specifying the shares of the several proprietors of this property and declaring that the Biswas defendants had no share at all. It seems that in these proceedings the Biswas defen...
Khagendra NaraIn Singh Vs. Shashadhar Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal495
Brett and Mitra, JJ.1. In this case a Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause, why the order of the District Judge in the matter of the appointment of a Receiver mentioned in the petition should not be set aside and the case sent back to him so that the matter might be determined in accordance with law.2. It appears that in a case pending in the Court o the Subordinate Judge of Mozufferpore the Subordinate Judge considered it necessary that a Receiver should be appointed and that he reported the matter to the District Judge nominating a certain person for appointment as Receiver and submitted the name of that person with the grounds for the nomination to the District Judge. The District Judge however after receiving the report appears to leave taken into consideration the grounds stated by, the Subordinate Judge and holding that there were no sufficient grounds for the appointment of a Receiver he declined to sanction the appointment and refused the application. T...
Durga Prosad Sureka Vs. Bhajan Lall Lohea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal614
Robertson, J.1. The facts in this case, as found by both Courts, are simple and vary cogent.2. In October 1899 (the matter being brought to a final conclusion on 30th October 1899), the appellant Sareka bought from the respondents the whole of a certain cargo of Russian kerosene oil, which the respondents had themselves bought from merchants named Graham & Co. at 50 pence per case. Seeing that the market was rising, and repenting them of their bargain, the respondents, by fraud, inserted in the bought and sold notes the figures 100,000 cases, as descriptive of the quantity of oil sold, whereas the truth was that the cargo amounted to 125,000. This opportunity of fraud came the respondents' way, because the original sellers (Messrs. Graham & Co.) did not fall in with, or at least were said by the respondents not to fall in with, the arrangement first proposed, viz., that the original sale by them should be simply transferred to the appellant Sureka as buyer. Accordingly, the bought and ...
Jotindra Mohun Lahiri Vs. Guru Prosunno Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal597
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal against two decrees of the High Court of Bengal dated the 17th July 1900, overruling a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rungpore of the 25th May 1898. The suit was for contribution in respect of a decree, under which all parties to the present suit and all parties to the present appeal (or those whose interests they represent) were liable as judgment-debtors; the plaintiff's case being that he had paid a larger amount towards the satisfaction of that' decree than properly fell to his share as between him and his co-debtors.2. The proceedings now before their Lordships are a stage, and. it is to be feared not the final stage, in a tedious and complicated course of litigation between the various persons from time to time interested in the estate of Karaibari, and between the several branches of a family, which owes its origin to one Rama Nath Lahiri, who was at one time the principal sharer in that estate. The present suit is so far connected with ...
Balkishen Sahu Vs. Khugnu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal722
Francies W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question submitted to us is this: 'When an appeal is pending to the High Court against a preliminary order made in a Subordinate Court under Section 215A of the Civil Procedure Code, has the High Court jurisdiction to stay the carrying out of such order pending the hearing of the appeal?' I have no hesitation in answering the question in the affirmative. Apart from the question whether the case falls within Section 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court, which has seizin of the appeal, 'can make an order staying proceedings pending its hearing.2. With this expression of opinion, the rule must go back to the referring Court. The costs of this reference are made costs in the rule....
Mohini Mohan Chowdhry Vs. Harendra Chandra Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal691
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question submitted to us is this: 'Can a Magistrate, while convicting an accused under Sections 341/114 the Indian Penal Code, for wrongfully restraining a person by the erection of a hut or by any similar act of obstruction, order that the hut or other means of obstruction should be removed?' In my opinion, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction, under the sections referred to, to' make such an order, and I say this with all respect to the authority cited. No such power is vested in the Magistrate either under the Penal Code or under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, in the absence of such statutory power. I fail to see how the order could properly have been made. I wish. I could have arrived at a different conclusion as expediency and common sense point in that direction but having regard to the facts found in this case, and to the terms of Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order may be supported. I see no reason for putting a narrow con...
Arip Mandal Vs. Ram Ratan Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal757
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. In our opinion, irrespective of custom or local usage, the heir of an under-raiyat under an annual holding as entitled, on the death of the under-raiyat, to remain in possession of the land, until the end of the agricultural year, for the purpose, if the land has been sublet, of realising the rent which might accrue during the year, or if not sublet, for the purpose of tending and gathering in the crops. In this case the suit was not brought until after the expiration of the then agricultural year. Although there was a claim for mesne profits, there is no evidence whatever to show that there wore any, or that there were any crops which had been sown by the plaintiff's predecessor. The result, therefore, is that there is nothing which he can claim in this suit; and the suit must be dismissed.2. The appellant is entitled to his costs in the two lower Courts, but to no costs of this Appeal.Prinsep, J.3. I am of the same opinion.Ghose, J.4. I agree.Harington, J.5...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »