Kolkata Court June 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.
Lakshmi NaraIn Banerjee Vs. Tara Prosanna Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal944
Geidt and Mookerji, JJ.1. The plaintiffs and the defendants are adjoining land-owners. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have planted near the boundary several trees, the branches of which have overhung the plaintiffs' land and caused damage to their wall and the roots of which have penetrated the foundation of their building and wall and effected cracks therein. The plaintiffs accordingly prayed for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the trees, and also for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from planting any trees on their land near the boundary line, which might cause damage to the wall and the foundation of their building. The claim was resisted substantially on the grounds that the defendants were at liberty to use their land as they pleased, that the trees had existed for many years and were consequently not liable to be removed, and that, as a matter of fact, the plaintiffs have suffered no damage. In the Court of first instance, a Commissioner was...
Ram Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. Ram Newaj Rajguru
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal1021
Geidt and Mookerjee, JJ.1. On the 14th January 1898, some choukidari chakran lands were resumed by the Government, and settled with the Maharaja of Burdwan. On the 26th November 1898, Satcowry Banerjee obtained a permanent lease of the lands from the Maharaja and, subsequently, on the 7th June 1899 conveyed his leasehold interest to the plaintiff. On the. 17th July 1900 the plaintiff instituted the present suit to eject the defendants on the ground that their tenancy, if any, under the choukidars gave them the position of a tenant-at-will, and that such tenancy had terminated on the resumption of the lands. The defendants pleaded that they had acquired rights of occupancy and were not liable to he ejected. The Court of first instance held that the defendants had been in occupation of the lands as cultivating tenants under the chowkidars, that the rent receipts from 1846--1898, which they had produced to prove their possession for many years, were genuine, and, that they must be treated...
Anwar HosseIn Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal885
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. These appeals relate to a will alleged to have been executed by one Mahmud Shah alias Neku. He was a Mohamedan fakir and lived at Bhagalpur and at Bareilly and wandered about to other places. He had amassed a considerable amount of money and was engaged in lending it out. His estate has been valued now at Rs. 33,000. The will was executed on the 19th November 1894 at Bhagalpur and was registered, two days later. By it (it is said) he bequeathed all his property absolutely to the Empress of India. The original will is not forthcoming, but the Secretary of State for India produced a certified copy of the will from the Registration Office, and applied to the District Judge of Bhagalpur for letters of administration on behalf of the Empress of India on the 21st September 1000. The application has been opposed by two parties, first, by Anwar Hossein who claims to be a first cousin of the testator, and, secondly, by one Tulsi Das Banerji, who is the minor son of one...
Mahabir Pershad Singh Vs. Dhanukdhari Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal815
Francis W. Maelean, C.J. and Mitra, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Section 588, Clause (16) of the Code of Civil Procedure from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Gya, setting aside a sale held on the 25th November 1902 in pursuance of an order made on the 11th June 1901 under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellants, the mortgagees, were themselves the auction-purchasers.2. The judgment debtors, the mortgagors, based their application. for setting aside the sale on various grounds of fraud and material irregularity, but the only ground given effect to by the Lower Court is that the order made by the Court on the 22nd September 1902, adjourning the sale to the 24th November 1902, at the request of the judgment-debtors did not specify the hour of sale as prescribed by Section 291 of the Code, and that, therefore, there was material irregularity vitiating the sale.3. The Subordinate Judge has found, and we see no reason to dissent from his finding, that the market valu...
Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Paresh Nath Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal839
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the defendants NOs. 1 and 3 against a decree for damage and for an injunction passed by the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh. The facts of the case may be briefly stated thus:--The plaintiff No. 1, Raja Paresh Nath Singh, zemindar of Gaddi Palgunge, is the owner of the Pareshnath hill. On the top of the hill there are certain shrines built by the Sitambari sect of Jains. There is a road which runs up the hill in question for the convenience and use of the pilgrims resorting to the said shrines; and it may be taken that the owner of the hill, the then zemindar of Gaddi Palgunge, dedicated the road for the use of the public It appears that some years ago certain disputes broke out between Raja Paresh Nath Singh and the Sitambari sect of Jains, and these disputes were settled by an ekrarnamah executed between the parties in the year 1872; and the conditions of that ekrarnamah were subsequently reaffirmed in another ekrarnamah in the year 1878....
Bibijan Bibi Vs. Sachi Bewah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal863
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The appellants obtained against the respondents an order absolute for sale under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act, of property mortgaged to them by the latter. The property was advertised for sale in pursuance of the order, but before the sale took place the mortgagors applied for permission to pay into Court the mortgage money and costs in satisfaction of the decree. The Court executing the decree declined to receive the money tendered by the respondents. The District Judge on appeal held that the money should have been received under the power conferred on the Court by Section 291 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ordered accordingly. The mortgagees have appealed.2. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that an order absolute for sale having been passed and having regard to Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagor's right to redeem was extinguished, and as the practical effect of an order under Section 291 permitting the ...
Rakhohari Chattaraj Vs. Bipra Das Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal975
Geidt and Mokerjee, JJ.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to realize a debt secured by two mortgage-bonds executed by defendant No. 1 and by the father of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. After the execution of those bonds, the property passed into the hands of defendants Nos. 4 and 5. Defendant No. 5 is the appellant here. That portion of the property, which is in his possession, was sold in execution of a money decree against the mortgagors in January 1897, and was again sold privately by the auction-purchaser to defendant No. 5 in January 1899. The plaintiff sought to realize by the sale of the mortgaged property not only the amount of the original debt, but also an amount which he had paid under the provisions of Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure to save the property from being sold in execution of a rent decree, while it was in the possession of the vendor of defendant No. 5, the payment being made a few days before the defendant No. 5 purchased the property.2. The District ...
Ram Lall Mistry Vs. R.T. Greer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal829
Stephen, J.1. In this case the defendant has, acting under the provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, destroyed the property of the plaintiff. I need to now consider the facts of the case, but three points of law have been raised before me.2. In the first place, is the defendant protected under Section 4 of the Act, which provides in the ordinary form that, 'no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything done, or in good faith intended to be done, under this Act.' The defendant is the Chairman of the Calcutta Corporation, and consequently under the rules framed under the Act, he is the Magistrate, who is to enforce them. See Rule 2, Plague Regulation A, dated 8th October 1900, in the Calcutta Gazette, 17th October 1900, page 1144.3. It is plain that the provision in Section 4 of the Act is intended in the first place to protect a person in the defendant's position against liability for irregularities that may occur in the proper performance of his...
Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhry Vs. Tarini Charan Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal807
Rampini and Bodilly, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether a plaintiff can sue on a mortgage bond for Rs. 10,000 entered into to secure future advances, when more than that sum had been realized by him privately. The Subordinate Judge held that he cannot.2. Mr. Hill for the appellant contends that the Subordinate Judge is wrong. We have no doubt that this is so. The bond was given as security for sums advanced on a running account, and it was evidently intended that, when advances of the amount specified in the bond had been either wholly or partially paid off, it should continue as a security for fresh advances up to the limit specified. The advances made never at any time exceeded Rs. 10,000, but advances to the extent of more than four times that amount were made and from time to time paid off. The Subordinate Judge has held that this precludes the plaintiff from now suing on the bond, which had been stamped with a stamp of Rs. 50, which is sufficient to cover the sum ...
Hira Lal Thakur Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal1053
Pratt and Handley, JJ.1. The prisoner in this case has been convicted of offences under Sections 420, 471 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code. One Surajbhan Thakur was jointly tried with him on charges under Section 403 read with 109 and Section 414.2. The offences of which the appellant was charged were said to have been committed on the 23rd August 1903. The charges against Surajbhan Thakur also mentioned the same date; but in his judgment the Magistrate has stated, and we think quite correctly, that Surajbhan Thakur had nothing to do with what occurred on the 23rd August. Therefore in convicting him with reference to the note of Rs. 500 in White away, Laid law's shop we must take it that the Magistrate found that the offences which Surajbhan Thakur committed took place on the 22nd January 1904, and not on the 23rd August.3. We think it is clear that the transaction of the 23rd August was complete in itself and that Surajbhan had nothing to do with it. What occurred on the 22nd January ...