Kolkata Court February 1906 Judgments
Joy Gobind Laha Vs. Monmotha Nath Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal580
Mitra and Geidt, JJ.1. This is an appeal in a suit for rent. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court. One of the defendants died,' but no attempt was made by the appellants to get the legal representatives of the deceased respondent substituted on the record. A preliminary objection has, therefore, been taken by the learned vakil for the other respondents that the appeal cannot proceed and that we should pass an order directing that the appeal has abated. The liability of the defendants is, however, joint an 1 several, and the death of one of the defendants without his legal representatives being substituted in his place cannot exonerate the other defendants from liability. The appeal abates only so far as the deceased defendant is concerned.2. As regards the other defendants, we see no reason why the appeal should not proceed. Section 368 of the Code no doubt says that the suit shall abate, but we must read the section as if the words are 'should abate so far as the deceased defend...
Tag this Judgment!A.E. Voss Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal669
Harington, J.1. This is an objection in the nature of a demurrer by the defendant to the plaint. The suit is one in which the plaintiff claims arrears of salary and a declaration that he is entitled to a pension. The defendant says that on the face of the plaint the cause of action is barred by limitation, and, moreover, the allegations in the plaint, if all are admitted to be true, disclose no right in the plaintiff, which is enforceable according to the law of this country. The suit is brought on the allegation that the plaintiff entered the service of the Government of India as a clerk in the Foreign Office, and the plaint states: 'and it was contracted and agreed and it became a term of his employment that he should not be dismissed arbitrarily or otherwise than for good cause and in accordance with the orders, rules and regulations of the Government on the subject.'2. It then goes on to allege what the plaintiff's salary was and that he was entitled to a pension, and in the third ...
Tag this Judgment!Khetra Pal Singh Vs. Kritarthamoyi Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal566
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. For my own part I think this Rule ought to have been discharged, and might have been discharged, on a very short and simple ground and that is this. At the date of the suit and the date of the decree the plaintiff was undoubtedly the landlord. It was, therefore, clearly a suit and a decree under the Bengal Tenancy Act; and that being so, when we look at Section 170 of that Act, it is clear that Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply. That, to my mind, is sufficient to dispose of the Rule.2. But upon the question submitted, I think the first question is a little too wide in its terms. In my opinion if, at the time when a suit is instituted and a decree is made, the plaintiff is still the landlord, the fact that subsequently he sells his landlord's interest does not prevent him from obtaining the benefit of Section 65 of the Act, and if the decision in the case of Hem Chunder Bhunjo v. Mon Mohini Dassi (1894) 3 C.W.N. 604 is, as app...
Tag this Judgment!Brajabala Devi Vs. Gurudas Mundle
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal487
Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ.1. This is a Rule obtained by a decree-holder auction-purchaser, calling upon the judgment-debtor and another person, both claimants under Section 335 of the Civil Procedure Code, to shew cause why an order made by the Munsiff of Uluberia under that section should not be set aside. The facts, which have given rise to these proceedings, are practically undisputed. The present petitioner Rrajabala obtained an ex-parte decree for rent against Gurudas Mundle, on the allegation that she was the landlord of an agricultural holding in the possession of the latter. Gurudas made an application to have the ex-parte decree set aside, but was unsuccessful. The decree-holder then took out execution, the property was sold and purchased by herself. She then obtained delivery of possession, with the result that the judgment debtor Gurudas was ousted from the holding. An application was thereupon made under Section 335 of the Civil Procedure Code, to the Court, which had deliv...
Tag this Judgment!Gour Chandra Das Vs. Prasanna Kumar Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal812
Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ.1. This is a Rule issued by this. Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,, calling upon the first defendant in the suit to show cause why the decree of the Court below, in so far as it dismisses the claim of the plaintiff as against him, should not be set aside. The plaintiff sued the defendants for recovery of money due on a bond alleged to have been executed in his favour by the defendants jointly on the 12th April 1901. The consideration for the bond is stated to have been money due on an earlier bond, which was satisfied by the execution of the bond now in suit. The second defendant alone entered appearance and resisted the claim on the ground that what purported to be his signature on the bond was a forgery. The Court below found on the evidence that the bond was executed by the first defendant, and after, it had been delivered to the plaintiff and while it was in his custody, the name of the second defendant was forged either by ...
Tag this Judgment!AlimuddIn Vs. Ishan Chandra Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal693
Rampini and Geidt, JJ.1. These four appeals relate to four suits, which were brought by the plaintiff for declaration of his right to certain lands, for a direction that the Collector should proceed with their partition Tinder the Estates Partition Act, and for possession to be given to the plaintiff and his co-sharers.2. The facts of the case are as follows: Proceedings under the old Estates Partition Act (VIII of 1876) were taken with regard to estate No. 1893, but certain persons objected that the plots in dispute did not appertain to estate No. 1893, but to other mehals. The Collector consequently passed an order, excluding these disputed lands from partition.3. The plaintiff complained that this order of the Collector was wrong on the merits and he said that the lands really appertain to estate No. 1893 and ought to have been partitioned; and he now prays that this be ordered to be done and that possession be given to him and his co-sharers.4. Both the Lower Courts have held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Vs. Shofiannissa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal853
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. The true question raised in the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was as to the genuineness and validity of a deed of wakf propounded by the defendants as having been executed by one Kala Chand, the ancestor of both the parties, in the year 1223 M.S. The plaintiffs are seven of the heirs of the said Kala Chand, and they claimed in the suit their share of the properties left by him, while the defendants set up this wakfnama in answer to the plaintiffs' claim in respect of the properties covered by schedules 6 to 12. The Court of Appeal below has given the plaintiffs a decree, holding, as we understand its judgment, that the wakfnama was not intended to operate as a trust in favour of the mosque- There are, however, passages in the judgment of the District Judge, which may be construed as meaning that that officer did not intend to find that the document in question was not meant to be an operative transaction, but that the executant or the alleged exec...
Tag this Judgment!Madar Mondal Vs. Mahima Chandra Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal531
Mitra and Geidt, JJ.1. The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were in occupation of the lands in dispute in this case under the plaintiffs. Whether they had a right of occupancy or not was a question raised in the pleadings and was answered by the Munsiff in the affirmative. The lower Appellate Court has not come to any distinct finding on the question.2. The third issue raised in the case is 'whether defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have any jatnai right in the lands in suit and if so, whether the same right is transferable.' The second part of the issue has been answered, namely, that the jamai right is not transferable. The first part has not been distinctly answered in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. If we had agreed with that Court in the view it has taken of the effect of the transfer by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of their right as occupancy raiyats, there would be no necessity for a remand. But the lower Appellate Court not having come to any distinct finding on the question raised...
Tag this Judgment!Juggernath Augurwallah Vs. E.A. Smith and Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal547
Sale, J.1. The plaintiffs by a contract dated the 28th of November 1905 sold 1,000 bales of jute of the Rajindra mark to the defendant firm of E. A. Smith & Co., the goods to be placed alongside the exporting vessel during the month of November and to be paid for in cash against mate's receipts. Under shipping instructions of the same date received from the defendant firm, the goods were placed alongside the steamship Uganda, and in due course and in terms of the contract the goods were subsequently shipped on board the vessel and two mate's receipts, dated the 3rd and 4th December for 875 and 125 bales respectively, made out in the names of the defendant firm were obtained by the plaintiffs. These mate's receipts accompanied by the plaintiff's bill against the defendant firm for Rs. 46,000 and the usual measurement and weighment certificates were on the 5th of December made over to the defendant firm for examination, and the defendant firm gave the plaintiffs on the same day the usual...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Panda Vs. Ram Krishna Mahapatra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal507
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case is a minor, and he is the appellant. It appears that since this appeal was filed and quite recently the next friend of the minor has died, and an application has been made to us to appoint another person as his next friend to enable him to carry on the appeal and the suit. We make the order accordingly.2. The facts of this case are stated in the earlier portion of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, and I do not think it necessary, for the purposes of our present decision, to repeat what is stated there. The real question that we have to decide is whether the present plaintiff can successfully maintain the suit, the object of which is to have it declared that the alienation of a certain portion of the property, which he says is debutter property, is a bad alienation and ought to be set aside and possession of the property given to him. That shortly is the object of the suit, and the Munsiff gave a decree in favour of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »