Kolkata Court February 1906 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.
Shama Charan Nandi Vs. Abhiram Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal511
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Manbhum in favour of the plaintiffs dated the 29th June 1905. The subject-matter of this litigation is a mauza named Grarfalbari in the defendants' possession. They derive their title from a mukarari lease granted to their predecessor in February 1860 by Pranananda Mohunt Goswami, the grandfather of the plaintiff No. 1, under which the whole mauza with the exception of 5 bighas was in consideration of a bonus of Rs. 62 leased to a lady named Ananga Mohini at an annual rental of Rs. 31. The five bighas excepted were subsequently leased to the defendants in November 1896 on payment of a bonus of Rs. 700 for an annual rent of Rs. 50. The latter lease was executed by Prananand's widow and his three sons, one of whom Raghobanand is the father of the plaintiff No. 1. The second plaintiff, Burn & Co., have acquired a lease of the mauza from the plaintiff No 1.2. The plaintiffs...
G.S. Hates Vs. Ghina Barhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal459
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is a suit to recover khas Possession of a ghat called Ghat Tarabari. It appears that, by a lease dated so far back as the year 1862, this ghat was, together with certain jote lands, let out to the defendants' predecessors in title at an annual jama of Rs. 45, that is to say, both for the jote land and the ghat. That lease was for five years and, after it came to an end, the defendants held over for a great many years on the same terms. The result of that has been that the defendants have now acquired the position of occupancy raiyats as regards the jote land. Now, the plaintiffs say that this rent of Rs. 45 for both the ghat and the jote land is insufficient,' and that the defendants are not, under any circumstances, entitled to the ghat and they gave them notice to give it up, and, on their refusal to do so, they have brought the present action.2. Both the Courts have decided against the plaintiffs, who have appealed. It seems to me that in th...
Chairman of the Purnea Municipality Vs. Siva Sankar Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal899
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This suit was instituted on the 9th September 1903, and the object of it was to restrain the defendant Municipality from interfering with a small strip of land, which the plaintiff claimed to be his and to obtain an injunction restraining the Municipality from pulling down a verandah, which he had built on this piece of land.2. The defendant No. 1 was the Municipality and the other defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are apparently the zemindars of this piece of land. It is a little difficult to see why they were at all made parties to the suit. However, they did not enter appearance and took no part in the suit.3. On the 30th March 1904, on an application of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 the case was referred to the arbitration of three gentlemen, and they made their award in due time and, by that award, they dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. That award was filed in Court on the 29th April of the same year, and the parties were directed to put in ...
Ramesh Chandra Dhar Vs. Karunamoyi Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal498
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. The question raised in these appeals is whether the Court of appeal below acted illegally in setting aside an award made by certain arbitrators, when the Court of first instance, where the award was filed, made a decree in accordance with it. It appears that the matter was referred to three arbitrators. Two of them agreed in making an award, but the third arbitrator did not agree, the result being that he did not sign the award. But notwithstanding this, the award was filed in Court and received. Subsequently the dissentient arbitrator came into Court and signed the award, and the Court, in accordance with such award, made a decree. The party against whom the decree was thus pronounced appealed to the higher Court, and that Court has held that the award is not a valid and legal award, and no decree could be made upon it. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant in these cases that, having regard to the provisions of Section 522 of the Code of Civil Pro...
Rash Behary Shaha Vs. Nrittya Gopal Nundy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal477
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an appeal brought by the defendants against a judgment find decree of this Court in favour of the plaintiff in an action for damages for breach of contract to deliver sugar.2. The plaintiff through his agent entered into two contracts with the, defendants' firm, each for the purchase of 150 tons of Java sugar. The contracts were similar: the portions material to this appeal run as follows:The shipment of the sugar shall be made during September and October next in lots of about 75 tons in a shipment.... Should the vessel or vessels be lost, or any portion of the goods declared as shipped be short landed, this contract to be void as regards such portion .... Delivery shall be given and taken from the Port Commissioners' Jetty for ghats and for seller's godown in Calcutta on arrival of the goods. Terms : Cash before delivery.....3. The plaintiff's case was that he tendered the price of the September shipment and of the October shipment, but th...
Dwarka Nath Saha Vs. Ledu Sikdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal502
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is, whether certain documents produced by the defendant in answer to the plaintiffs' claim, which is one for ejectment, are inadmissible in evidence by reason of want of registration. This question, however, was not raised either in the Court of first instance or in the Court of appeal below; and, looking at the judgments of both the lower Courts, it would clearly appear that the real point upon which the parties went to trial was whether those documents were genuine or not. The Court of first instance held that they are not genuine; but the Subordinate Judge in the Court of appeal below came to a different conclusion, namely, that the documents in question are genuine, and that the defendant had such an interest in the property as disentitled the plaintiff to eject him. The documents are described as amalnaman, and were granted by the plaintiffs' lessor in June 1882. They recite that the defendant verbally applied for a gran...
Sundar Jha Vs. Bansman Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal367
Harington and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Sub-Judge returning a plaint for amendment on the ground that it was bad for misjoinder.2. The plaintiffs are 4 in number and they all claim possession of the entire 16 annas of certain properties. They claim under different titles. The first three are heirs of Kamala Nath Jha, deceased, while plaintiff No. 4 derives his title to ten annas out of the sixteen by purchase from plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3.3. The learned Subordinate Judge considered that the cause of action of plaintiffs 1 to 3 was a different cause of action from that of plaintiff No. 4, and accordingly returned the plaint for amendment.4. The whole question turns on the meaning of 'same cause of action' in Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code.5. The words 'cause of action' may be the statement of the wrong for which the plaintiff seeks redress--as for example a plaintiff's cause of action may be a breach by the defendant of a contract to sell and deliver goo...
Peatap NaraIn Mukerjee Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal390
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is a suit in respect of some 323 bighas-of resumed chaukidari chakran land situate in 13 mauzas, which, are mentioned in the schedule B annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff is a proprietor of more than 14 annas share of lot Agore, within which the disputed lands are alleged to be and the remaining share of the estate belongs to defendants Nos. 5 to 8. The Collector, in pursuance of Bengal Act VI of 1870, has transferred to, and settled the disputed lands with, defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The plaintiff challenges that action of the Collector on the ground that he and his co-sharers, defendants Nos. 5 to 8, were entitled to have the disputed lands transferred to, and settled with them. The object of the action is to have it declared that the transfers to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 of the lands in question were illegal and that the plaintiff, either alone or with defendants Nos. 5 to 8, is entitled to have them settled with him, with a prayer for conseque...
Budree Das Mukim Vs. Chooni Lal Johurry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal789
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application by the defendants that the suit should be dismissed with costs on the ground that it is one within the terms of Section 589 and is not maintainable, no consent of the Advocate-General to its institution having been previously obtained.2. The discussion of a preliminary objection as to the form of the application became unnecessary, as learned Counsel for both, sides agreed to treat the matter as though it had come before me for settlement of issues.3. The claim is alleged to be demurrable. In. the determination of an objection of this nature the facts must be taken and accepted as they appear in the plaint.4. As there stated, the plaintiffs are members of the Sitambari-sect of the Jain community at Calcutta, who claim as such to be interested in the maintenance of the Jain temple situate at 139 Cotton Street, as also in the worship of the Thakurs there kept.5. The plaintiffs soy that the temple was established by the members of their sect and that...
Moti Thakoor Vs. Deputy Conservator of Forests
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal895
Brett and Stephen, JJ.1. The present petitioner has been convicted of offences under Rules 1 and 2 framed by the Assam Government under Section 40 of the Assam Forest Regulation 7 of 1891, and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 800 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The rules, which he is said to have infringed provide, in Rule 1, for the import of foreign rubber into British territory along certain authorized routes and forbid forest produce being brought in by any other routes, while Rule 2 provides that duty leviable on such produce shall be realized at certain revenue stations.3. The case, which has been found to be proved against the petitioner in the Lower Courts, is that he was removing 21 maunds of India rubber along an unauthorized oute on the 3rd of May 1905, and that by so doing he was also infringing Rule No. 2 by attempting to avoid payment of the duty leviable on that rubber.4. It appears that, in consequence of information lodged to a Forest...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »