Kolkata Court May 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.
Sarat Sundari Barmani Vs. Uma Prosad Roy Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal628
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. After stating the facts as set forth above their Lordships continued: The main grounds urged in this appeal may be summarized thus:(i) That the invontory and account filed during the early stage of the proceedings had been accepted and were final under Section 98 of Act V, and that the District Judge had no power to call for a revised inventory and account.(ii) That he had no power to call for accounts for the subsequent period.(iii) That he had no power to appoint commissioners to audit the accounts.(iv) That he had no power to commence proceedings to revoke the probate under Section 50 of Act V of 1881 on his own motion.(v) That he had no power to admit under Section 50 an. application of a person, who had no sufficient interest.There are many other grounds which deal with partieular incidents in the proceedings or with questions of fact and it is unnecessary for us to go into them.2. The consideration of the first ground depends on the question, what is the...
Giribala Dassi Vs. Bijoy Krishna Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal688
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. This is an appeal by an executrix, to whom probate of a will had been granted in March 1899, under Section 78 of the Probate and Administration Act, it was competent to the Judge, when granting the probate, to direct that the executrix should give security for the due fulfillment of her office as executrix, but no such direction was given at the time, and necessarily no security bond was executed by the executrix. About two years afterwards, the application was made by the opposite party before us, for revocation, of the probate upon the ground that the inventory and account exhibited by the executrix were untrue.2. The learned judge, upon investigation, has found that though the inventory and the account are wrong, yet they are not, to use his own words, 'wilfully wrong' and that no good purpose would be served by revoking the probate already granted. But he is, at the same time, of opinion that good cause has been made out for calling upon the executrix to f...
Upendra Chndra Singh Vs. Mohri Lal Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal745
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 7, Upendra Chandra Singh, one of the several defendants An a suit brought by the plaintiffs Mohri Lal Marwari and others for the purpose of enforcing a mortgage security bearing date 17th September 1886, executed by two individuals Mobarak Ali and Ashraf Ali. By this mortgage bond, 4 properties, or rather shares therein, were mortgaged to the plaintiffs. We are not concerned in this appeal with the properties Nos. 3 and 4. As to property No. 1, what was mortgaged to the plaintiffs was a 2-anna share therein, and, as to property No. 2 five-anna and odd gunda share. It appears that the defendant No. 7 Upendra Chandra Singh had two mortgages executed to him by the same mortgagors in respect of property No. 1, one dated the 21st August, 1882, and the other the 28th August? 1884. Under these two mortgages a 2 1/2-anna share and a 3 1/2-anna share respectively, in the said property, were hypothecated upon these two documents, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›