Kolkata Court July 1905 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.
Sriram Chakravarti Vs. Hari NaraIn Singh Deo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal54
Pargiter J.1. This suit relates to village Petana, which is situated within the ancestral zemindari of the plaintiff Kumar Jyoti Prasad Singh Deo. It is held by the third group of defendants, who are called the Groswamis, as a permanent debutter tenure subject to a rent of about Rs. 23 paid to the zemindar. It is held as a makarrari maurusi tenure under them by a large number of persons, who composed the second group of defendants known as the Chakravartis and Namtirthas, and these mukarrnndars gave a lease of the village to the first group of defendants, known as Messrs. Mylne & Co., from May 1894 to June 1899, in order that these defendants might work the coal mines discovered in the village.2. In 1898 the plaintiff learnt of these mining operations, and instituted this suit against Messrs. Mylne & Co. in July 1900 to have his underground rights in the village declared, to get khas possession of the same, to obtain an injunction against the Company and to recover compensation for the...
Akhil Chandra Mandal and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1905
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.306
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. I see no reason to differ from the learned Judge as to the construction of the pottah of 1877. I think that, in the circumstances, he was quite right in remanding the case. It was not a remand merely upon the question of service of the notice but also upon its sufficiency. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Pratt J.2. I agree....
Budhai Sheik Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal292
Pargiter and Woodroffe, JJ.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Sections 879 and 143 of the Penal Code. It is alleged that certain linseed was looted on the 22nd February and certain tobacco on the 23rd February by an unlawful assembly consisting of the same persons, of whom the petitioners were the leaders. It is contended that the trial was bad in that two distinct offences, involving occurrences of two different dates and alleged to have been committed by more than one person, have been tried jointly in one trial. A Rule was granted on this ground, as also on the ground that the petitioners should not have been summarily tried. As regards the first point, which we need alone consider, the Magistrate in his Explanation submits that the case comes within Section 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which permits of three offences of the same kind within one year being charged together. In this case the theft and unlawful assembly on the 22nd February were parts of the same tran...
In Re: Mylne
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal625
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of importance. It turns upon the true construction of Section 85 of the Evidence Act. On the 3rd June last, a petition was presented by Mr. Harry, a member of the firm of Messrs. Orr, Dignam & Co. asking for an order that letters of administration with the copy of the will of the property and credits of one William Hansbrow Mylne deceased be granted to him as the duly constituted Attorney of William Charles Robert Mylne, the sole executor named in the said will, to have effect within the province of Bengal. The statements in the petition were duly verified. The Power-of-Attorney was alleged to have been duly executed by the said William Charles Robert Mylne in the presence of the attesting witnesses thereto and also certified and attested by II. A. E. De Pinna, Notary Public, practising at London. His certificate was annexed to the said Power-of-Attorney. The Power-of-Attorney appears to have been in proper form. The ce...
Bhaba Prasad Vs. Jagadindra Nath Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal15
Ghosh and Geidt, JJ.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits brought by throe different co-sharers in the zemindari Parganah Pukhoria for recovery of possession of their respective shares in three dobas, which have been left in the property belonging to the defendant by the recession of the river Brahmaputra. That river is a navigable river which was settled, or rather the jalkar rights in which wore settled, by Government with the plaintiffs' predecessor many years ago. We take it that the plaintiffs, by virtue of the settlement conferred upon them, are entitled to exercise the right of fishery in the said river Brahmaputra wherever it flows within the limits prescribed in the settlement itself. It happened that the river at one time occupied the site where the dobas now stand, but, as wo have already mentioned, (he river has receded and gone towards the east, and the claim is for the said dobas, they being regarded as parts of the river. The cause of action, as alleged in the ...
Hari Mohan Singh Vs. Kali Prosad Chaliha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal11
Geidt J.1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that the appellant has not paid the proper Court-fee. The amount paid on the memorandum of appeal is Rs. 2 only, and for the respondent it is contended that the memorandum of appeal ought to hear an ad-valorem fee in accordance with Schedule I of the Court-fees Act. Article 1 of Sche-. dule I provides that a memorandum of appeal not otherwise provided for in the' Act is to bear a Court-fee according to the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute. The appellant, in placing a Court-fee of Rs. 2 on his memorandum of appeal, appears to have treated the matter as one coming within Article 11 of Schedule II of the Act which relates to a memorandum of appeal, when the appeal is not from an order rejecting a plaint or from a decree or an order having the force of a decree. Now the present appeal is brought against a judgment and decree directing that an award made on a reference to arbitration ,by ...
Abdoolla Bhay Sarafalli Vs. Ismail BIn Shaikh Badal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal571
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an application under Section 6 of Act XX of 1847 to have the name of the appellant expunged from the Catalogue of Books--kept in Bombay under the provisions of Act XXV of 1867--on the ground that he, the applicant, is the assignee from the proprietor, and consequently the proprietor of the copyright in the two hooks, which form the subject of dispute in the case. The learned Judge in the Court of First Instance has acceded to the application, and the respondent has appealed.2. The first and most important question raised on the appeal is that this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and that question subdivides itself into two portions. The material, portion of Section 6 of Act XX of 1847 is this: 'And it is enacted that, if any person shall deem himself aggrieved by any [entry made under colour of this Act in the said Book of Registry '--that is to say, a book wherein is registered the proprietorship in the copyright of books...
KurrutulaIn Bahadur Vs. Nuzbat-ud-dowla Abbas HosseIn Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal113
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court in Calcutta, dated the 6th August 1903, which reversed the previous judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Parganas, dated the 4th March 1901.2. The controversy between the parties relates to the estate of a Mahomedan lady known as Khas Mahal, who was the principal widow of the late ex-King of Oudh, and who died on the 1st April 1894. About the facts which have to be considered there is no longer any controversy. The respondent, shortly known as Peara Saheb, was a distant relation of the ex-Queen. About the year 1881 he entered her service, in which ho continued to the date of her death. He acquired her confidence in the highest degree, and became the head of her household and the manager of all her affairs. While occupying that position he received from her by way of gifts a largo amount of property, in fact, substantially the whole of the property possessed by her which yielded any inco...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›