Kolkata Court January 1906 Judgments

Sewdut Roy Vs. Sree Canto Maity

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal639

Woodroffe, J.1. This suit was instituted on the 22nd August 1905. The plaintiff applied for attachment before judgment. On the 30th August an order was made in default of security. On the 2nd September the goods which consisted of castor seeds and other articles were actually attached. On the 13th September the goods as perishable articles were at the instance of the plaintiff ordered to be sold, under the provisions of Sections 269 and 486 of the Code. The sale proceeds were thereafter and on the 2nd October paid into Court. On the 23rd November the party, who opposes this application, obtained a decree in another suit. Then on the 18th December the plaintiff obtained a decree in this suit. Then on the 5th January 1906 the opposite party attached the moneys in Court under the provisions of Section 272 of the Code as moneys payable to the defendant. Thereafter and on the 24th January 1906 the plaintiffs gave notice of this application in which they ask that they may be paid the sum in ...

Beni Peeshad Koeri Vs. Chaturi Tewary

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal444

Harington and Pratt, JJ.1. These appeals arise out of suits, which were brought by the appellant in her character as landlady against 26 of her tenants, claiming as against them possess of certain land on a declaration of her title there to as her khast land and in the alternative, should the Court be of opinion that she was not entitled to khas possession, rent might be assessed on the land in question.2. It appears that the laud In respect of which these suits were brought was land, which had accreted in consequence of a river retreating from the village, which forms part of the plaintiff's estate.. It has been proved in the evidence that in the year 1887 the river was some 3 or 4 russis distant from the village and that at the time the suit was brought it was some miles distant from the village, the land having grown up between the year 1887 and the time the suit was brought. In respect of a certain portion of the land in question there is no dispute as to possession, because it is ...

Hayes Vs. Rudranund Thakur

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal381

Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. By a patta dated the 16th July 1882, five taluks mentioned and specified in the kabuliat, which will be found set out at page 8 of the paper book, were granted in patni settlement by the predecessors-in-title of the present plaintiffs to the predecessors-in-title of the present defendants. That patta also included eight annas share of certain jote jamas of the tenants situated within tie boundaries of each of the five taluks mentioned in the deed, and also seven annas of lakheroj lands in apparently one of the mauzas. The rent reserved not only for the taluks which were settled in patni, but also for the eight annas of the jote jamas, was one entire annual rent of Rs. 3,400 and there was this provision in the deed 'In case the rent, etc.,'--by which I suppose were meant cesses and so forth,--' fall in arrears the zemindar End his heirs and representatives shall all along realize the principal amount of rent, besides interest, for instalment in defau...

Badiad DIn Ahmed Vs. NizamuddIn Haider

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal386

Hakington and Pratt JJ.1. This appeal is preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs in-a suit for possession of land on declaration of title and for the value of the crops thereon.2. The point of law on which the appellant relies arises on an oath, which was taken by one Syed Nizanruddin Haider in a proceeding relating to this property under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the question being whether that oath is conclusive in the present proceedings.3. The earlier proceedings, which related to this property were taken under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code; and in these proceedings the present respondent, Syed Nizamuddin Haider, filed a petition, saying:If Syed Mahommed Kasim, Mukhtear, swears on the Koran that the disputed property, namely, the heap of straw with paddy, belongs to Badlu Mia, then your petitioner will withdraw his claim and seek his relief in the Civil Court, or if the first party consents, your petitioner by swearing on the Koran will say that the dis...

Deo Nandan Pershad Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal649

Brett and Stephen, JJ.1. The petitioner Deo Nandan Pershad was a head-constable of the District Police of Lohardaga stationed at Selli thana. Ha was convicted on trial before the Joint-Magistrate at Ranchi of three offences under Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code. The three offences really formed part of one transaction, and though a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment was passed for each offence the Magistrate ordered that these sentences should run concurrently; in addition, the petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 43, or in default rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month,2. On appeal to the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, the convictions and sentences were upheld.3. The present rule was obtained from this Court on the main ground that the conviction of the petitioner rests entirely on the evidence of accomplices and that that evidence has not been corroborated as to material particulars connecting the petitioner with the offence.4. Th...

Girish Chandra Changdar Vs. Golam Karim

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal451

Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This being a second appeal, we must accept the facts as found by the Lower Appellate Court. It is unnecessary for me to recapitulate the facts so found, but I shall endeavour to deal, as succinctly as I can, with the various points that have been placed before us. The object of the suit was to set aside a sale held in pursuance of a certificate granted under the Public Demands Recovery Act, the Act then in force being Bengal Act I of 1895. The grounds upon which the plaintiff asked to hare the sale set aside were certain material irregularities in the publication of the sale notification, but beyond that, his case was that the Court, which executed the certificate, had no authority to do so. I may here incidentally remark that the present litigation has been going on for many years.2. The principal point relied on by the defendant, who is the auction-purchaser at the sale, is that the present suit does not he at all, having regard to the provisions ...

Anandamoyee Vs. Lakhi Chandra Mitra

Court: Kolkata

Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. The subject-matter of the suit, out of which this appeal arises, is a service tenure, which the defendant held under the plaintiff. The defendant renounced the title of his landlord, and executed a kabuilat in 1 respect of the whole of the land comprised in the service tenure in favour of a third party, and thereupon the present suit was brought for ejectment.2. The case seems clearly to fall within the Transfer of Property Act and not under the Bengal Tenancy Act. Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for ejectment can only be brought after notice having been given to the tenant; but Section 181 of the same Act exempts from the operation of the Act ghatwali or other service tenures. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act declares that 'in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immoveable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of eith...