Kolkata Court July 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.
Raj Kumar Sarkar Vs. Naya Chatoo Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal960
Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Khulna, dated the 7th October 1901.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs to obtain possession of a half share in 50 bighas of land, which were let some time ago to one Ekabbar under a jungleburi lease.3. The principal defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have purchased this land at an auction sale; and the plaintiffs now seek to eject them on the ground that the tenancy of Ekabbar was not of a transferable nature.4. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, contended the Lower Court that the interest of Ekabbar was that of a tenure-holder, and as such was transferable; or, if not, that it was a raiyati holding at fixed rates of rent, to which the provisions of Section 18 of the Bengal Tenancy Act are applicable.5. Both the Courts below have found that the interest of Ekabbar in the land was not that of a tenure-holder, but that of a raiyat holding at fixed rates.6. The plaintiffs a...
Rajendra Mullick Vs. Nanda Lall Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal1001
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question submitted to us is this: 'Is the jurisdiction of this Court,' that is the Small Cause Court, 'ousted by the defendant's raising a question of tide in a suit which, according to the case as stated in the plaint, this Court has jurisdiction to try, the question of title being the principal contested matter in the suit.' It is quite clear that, looking at the plaints, the Court had jurisdiction to try these two suits. It is established by authority that the Court has jurisdiction to try questions of title, which arise incidentally in the suit. It was also apparently the view of Mr. Ormond, and this is in favour of Mr. Garth's client that, if the question of title is the sole contested matter in the suit, then the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court is ousted. But in this case Mr. Panioty says: 'In these cases,' that is the cases under discussion, 'I am unable to say that the sole object of the plaintiff in bringing these suits was to have the titl...
Krishna Behari Sen Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal993
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit for malicious prosecution. The original plaintiff is dead. He died intestate. The present appellants have been substituted in his place as his heirs. They have not taken out administration to his estate. The case came on for trial in the Court below and an objection was taken that the cause of action did not survive. The learned Judge in the Court below upheld that objection and has dismissed the suit with costs, and hence the present appeal.2. We have been referred to various authorities in the Courts of England upon the question, in oases of this description, of whether or not the cause of action survives to the representatives of the deceased plaintiff; but it seems unnecessary to go into those cases because the law in India on the subject has been codified by Section 89 of the Probate and Administration Act, and all we have to look to is the law as so codified. Now what does Section 89 of the Probate and Administration Act say? It says: 'Al...
Sadasook Agarwalla Vs. Baikanta Nath Basunia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal1043
Brett and Mookerjee, JJ.1. The plaintiff-appellant in this appeal brought a suit to recover from the defendant-respondent the sum of Rs. 949 on a hatchitta.2. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant had borrowed Rs. 300 from him on the 12th Assar 1302 corresponding to the 19th June 1895, Rs. 25 on the 7th Assar, and Rs. 5 on the 12th Assar, thus mating a total of Rs. 330; that on the 9th Jaistha 1305 corresponding to 22nd May 1898, the defendant had acknowledged that that sum was due together with interest thereon from the 19th of June 1895 up to that date, amounting to Rs. 267-12, and on the Same date he had paid a sum of Rs. 9 in part payment of the loan taken on the 7th Assar. The present suit was instituted on the 20th September 1900, and the plaintiff's case was that by reason of the acknowledgment, made by the defendant on the 22nd May 1898, the suit was within time.3. The main defence taken in the case was that the suit was barred by limitation. The suit was brought on the k...
Aklemannessa Bibi Vs. Mahomed Hatem
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal849
Geidt and Mookerjee, JJ.1. The plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, in the Court of the Second Munsif at Atia upon the allegation that the first defendant was his lawfully married wife, that the other defendants had brought her under their influence and prevented her from coming to Ma house and that he was accordingly entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The relief claimed in the plaint was valued at Rs. 49. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there had been no valid marriage, hut they did not take exception to the valuation of the suit. Two issues were raised in the Court of first instance, namely, first, whether defendant No. 1 was the lawfully married wife of the plaintiff, and secondly, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the enforcement of conjugal rights prayed for. The learned Munsif found that there was no valid marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant and dismissed the suit. The plainti...
Hari Kisore Barna Sarma Vs. Barada Kisore Acharjya Chowdhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal1014
Brett and Mookerjee, JJ.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants appellants to obtain a permanent injunction against them restraining them from constructing any masonry building on the land included in their holding. The defendants are admittedly raiyats with a right of occupancy, and from their written statement it appears that the building which they were constructing for the purpose of a dwelling-house was a house 18 cubits in length by 14 cubits in breadth, consisting of Masonry walls supporting a corrugated iron roof. This building they were constructing on the site of their old dwelling-house and on land which for generations had been the homestead lend of the holding.2. The case for the plaintiffs was that the defendants had no right to erect such a building without first obtaining their consent as landlords. For the defendants it was contended that under the provisions of Section 77 and Clause f of Sub-section (2) of Section 70, of the Bengal Tenancy Ac...
Ujalbi Bibi Vs. Umakanta Karmokar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal970
Brett and Mookerjee, JJ.1. A certain jote belonged to one Ataulla, and the plaintiff No. 1, who is his daughter, and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, who are his granddaughters through a daughter, brought the suit for a declaration of their title to 14 annas 5 gundas share of the jote and to recover possession from the defendant No. 1, who claimed the property as mortgagee purchaser from Amirulla, the husband of the sister of plaintiff No. 1, (who is also the mother of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3), and who denied that the jote in question over belonged to Ataulla.2. Both the Courts below have found that the jote belonged to Ataulla, and not to Amirulla, and this finding is not contested in this appeal.3. It has, however, been pleaded on behalf of the defendants that the suit was barred by limitation.4. The first Court has held that the suit is not barred so far as the shares of all throe plaintiffs are concerned.5. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the suit is not barred so far as th...
Umesh Chandra Dass Vs. Shib NaraIn Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal1011
Ghose and Geidt, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether an application by a decree-holder, who has purchased a property in execution of his own decree, asking the Court to confirm the sale, is an application to take some steps in aid of execution of the decree, deferring to the application itself in this case, we find that it was really made by the decree-holder in his capacity as purchaser of the property in question. It was indeed made, not by the decree-holder, as such, but by the auction purchaser and, viewing it in this light it could hardly be said that it was an application in aid of execution of the decree. But apart from this consideration, we are of opinion that, inasmuch as no application was required for the purpose of having the sale confirmed, the application in question could not rightly be regarded as an application in aid of execution. Section 312, Code of Civil Procedure, says: 'If no such application' (that is to say, an application by the judgment-debto...
Amirullah Mahomed Vs. Nazir Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal932
Geidt and Mokerjee, JJ.1. One Gomai Nassya, who had an occupancy holding under the plaintiff, sublet the land comprised in the holding to the predecessors of the defendants. Subsequently the plaintiff purchased Gomai Nassya's holding, and thereupon brought the present suit to eject the defendants. The defendants pleaded that they had occupancy rights in the land, but that plea was overruled by both the Lower Courts. The Munsif hold that the defendants being tenants could not he ejected without notice. The Subordinate Judge, on appeal, has found that the defendants are mere trespassers, and has therefore decreed the plaintiff's suit. The ground of his decision was that on plaintiff's purchase of Gomai Nassya's holding, the occupancy right of the latter ceased to exist under the provisions of Section 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Moreover, as the sub-lease by Gomai Nassya was not made under a registered instrument and was not shown to have been effected with the landlord's consent, it is...
Mahananda Chakravarti Vs. Mongala Keotani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal937
Geidt and Mookerjee, JJ.1. On the 22nd July 1896, the plaintiff executed in favour of the defendant, a fisher woman by caste and profession, a lease of a tank. The terms of the lease, so far as they are material for the purposes of the present appeal, were as follows:On paying rent in advance I have taken temporary settlement from the municipality for a period extending from 1303 to 1307 sal of Parka Bandh. I hereby give settlement to you, of the said tank for the years 1303 to 1307 sal at a jama of seventy Rupees, in cash, and ten seers of chuna (small) fishes or, their value two rupees, per annum. You shall hold possession (thereof) throughout the period on paying the amount of rent by kists and year by year. If you fail to pay the kists, you shall pay interest as damages at the rate of annas 4 per rupee. If you make any plea on the ground of inundation, drought, non-rearing (of fish), &c.;, you will not get remission in the amount of rent. You shall also act according to the terms a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »