Kolkata Court April 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.
Dharma Das Kundu Vs. Amulyadhan Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1119
Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action commenced by him for the ejectment of the defendant, one of. his sons, from the property described in the schedule act of trespass. The plaintiff alleged that the land mentioned in the plaint is his anoestral property, that the defendant abuses and ill-treats him and sometimes attempts to beat him, and that his conduct has been of such a description as practically to destroy the peace of his family. He contends that the defendant is not entitled to enter upon or remain on the property without his leave and license and against his wish and consequently prays for a decree for ejectment and for a perpetual injunction. The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds, amongst which it is sufficient to state that he alleged that he paid off a mortgage upon a portion of the land described in the plaint and made improvements in the other parts of the properly and substantial additions to the ancestral bui...
Royzuddi Sheik Vs. Kali Nath Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal985
Rampini, J.1. The plaintiff sued on a kistibandi executed by the defendant No. 1, and prayed for a declaration of a lien over certain jote lands referred to in the kistibandi. The bond was executed by the defendant No. 1, but the plaintiff made the defendant No. 2 a party defendant, as ha is the father of the defendant No. 1, and was alleged to be jointly interested in the jote, which stands in the name of defendant No. 1 alone.2. The defendant No. 2 alone contested the suit.3. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree, declaring the amount of the kistibandi to be a charge on the jote lands in question, but exonerated the defendant No. 2 from all personal liability.4. On appeal the Lower Appellate Court found the kistibandi to be a mortgage, but held that it had not been duly executed as such and therefore was of no avail. He accordingly found the defendant No. 1 liable personally only and dismissed the suit as against the defendant No. 2.5. On the facts, he found that the defendant ...
In Re: Hari Lall Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1269
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application made in the insolvency of Hari Lall Mullick, who was declared an insolvent on the 29th March 1899.2. On the 13th June 1898 the insolvent executed a mortgage in favour of Girindra Nath Bhose to secure payment of the sum of Rs, 5,000 with interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum, over a one-third share of certain premises, which are described in the petition of Girindra Nath Bhose of the 31st August 1905.3. On the 18th January 1899 Girmdra Nath Bhose instituted a suit on his mortgage. On the 11th April, when the suit came on for final disposal., the Court ordered that, inasmuch as the mortgagor had since the institution of the suit been declared an insolvent, the hearing of the suit should be adjourned sine die. and it was ordered that Girindra Nath Bhose and a puisne mortgagee of the name of Sarat Chandra Mitra, who makes this application, should be directed to prove their claims under their respective mortgages in the insolvency proceedings....
Radha Prasad Mullick Vs. Ranee Mani Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal947
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. Hari Das Dutt, a Hindu, governed by the Bengal School of Hindu Law, died on the 30th October 1875, leaving him surviving his widow Surnomoni, two daughters, Rani Moni and Prem Moni and three grandsons by his daughter Prem Moni, namely, Radhu Prosad Mullick, Kashi Prosad Mullick and Joyti Prosad Mullick Rani Moni was childless, but her husband Kama Kanta Sen was then alive. Hari Das Dutt executed a will on the day of his death, and it is clear from it that, like most other Hindus, he was anxious for a son and as there was little likelihood of a son being born, he was desirous of adopting one, if he lived to do so. He appointed his wife Surno Moni, his father Madhu Sudan Dutt and his uncle Dwarka Nath Dutt, executrix and executors and trustees of his will, and he gave directions for the adoption of a son by them. On the 20th December 1875, Surno Moni and Dwarka Nath Dutt took out probate of the will from this Court.2. The schema of his will was this:O...
Balthasar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1032
Harington and Pratt, JJ.1. This is a rule calling on the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why certain proceedings had in his Court culminating in an order, dated February 14th, holding the petitioner to bail with two sureties to appear before the Magistrate at Bangalore should not be set aside.2. It appears that the petitioner was arrested without warrant on February 13th. On February 14th he was brought before the Presidency Magistrate charged with the offence of cheating, and the order, of which he now complains, releasing him on bail, was made on that date.3. A warrant for his arrest on the charge of cheating was issued by the Political Agent at Mysore on February 15th. The warrant was addressed to the Chief Presidency Magistrate by the Political Agent at Mysore under Section 7 of the Extradition Act.4. It is contended that the Chief Presidency Magistrate's order, having been made before the warrant arrived, was illegal and that the petitioner as a European British subject ...
Hyam Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal646
Mitra and Holmwood, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why his order, dated the 23rd February 1906, directing the demolition of the existing godown belonging to the petitioner within two months from the date of the order, should not be set aside.2. There are a number of grounds taken in the petition presented to this Court, but it is not necessary for us to deal with them, except the fourth ground, namely, that the order of demolition is not warranted by the provisions of Section 410 of Act III of 1899 (B.C.).3. The godown, which the petitioner has been directed to demolish by the order of the 23rd February, has been in existence admittedly for a long time. It is not covered by the plan which was sanctioned by the Corporation in the year 1902. Section 449 (1) directs that, on the application by the General Committee of the Corporation, the Magistrate may make an order directing that the work done, or so much of the work as has been unla...
Purna Chandra Mandal Vs. Radha Nath Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal867
Rampini, 1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional District Judge of Jessore, passed in an execution case.2. He held that the decree-holder was entitled to execute a decree passed in his favour on the 7th September 1894. The decree-holder's application for execution was made on the 15th November 1904, i.e., admittedly out of time. But the decree-holder contended that execution of his decree, which was a mortgage decree, was saved from the bar of limitation by applications under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act made on the 3rd January 1899, 4th December 1901 and 19th June 1903. It is conceded that, if these applications do not save execution from being barred by limitation, the present application for execution is long out of time.3. The Additional District Judge held that these applications do save execution from being barred, and he has done so on the authority of the ruling in Dina Nath Mitter v. Bejoy Krishna Das (1903) 7 C.W.N. 744, in which it has been laid...
Aimadar Mandal Vs. Makhan Lal Day
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1015
Francis William Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is a suit for possession of certain land on. establishment of title. The only question is whether the suit is barred by limitation.2. The material facts are as follows : By a mortgage made in 1880 in favour of the plaintiff, the lands in dispute were mortgaged to him to secure the principal sum of Rs. 450. The mortgagee some years afterwards instituted a suit to realize his security.3. He obtained a decree, and on the 21st of January 1898, the property was sold under that decree and the mortgagee became the purchaser. On the l6th of June 1898, symbolical possession was delivered to him under his purchase. The present suit was instituted on the 9th of July 1900. It appears that the landlord of the property in dispute instituted a rent suit against the mortgagor and a decree was obtained in that suit. The property was sold on the 20th of April 1886, and the purchaser under that decree subsequently let the property in question to defendant No...
Gobinda Chandra Pal Vs. Dwarka Nath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal666
Ghose and Caspersz, JJ.1. The facts of this case are shortly these : In execution of a decree obtained by the decree-holder, a certain property belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached, and in due course it was sold. The sale, however, was subsequently set aside on the 24th September 1904. On the same date, the Court made the following order: 'The sale having been set aside, the decree-holder is directed to take further steps for sale within three days hence. Put up on 28th September 1904 for orders.' On the 28th September 1904, the date fixed, the following order appears to have been recorded: 'No further steps taken, dismissed.' The 28th September seems to have been the last date, when the Court sat before the Durga Puja vacation; and it was not till the 17th November 1904 that a petition was presented by the decree-holder asking for issue of proclamation for sale of the property, which had already been attached. The judgment-debtor, thereupon, appeared and objected upon the gro...
Akshot Kumar Ghose Vs. Commissioners of the Poet of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1243
Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit by the Receiver and owners of the premises No. 257 Upper Chitpore Road, to the south of which is Schaloh Street.2. The Receiver has been discharged and his name was at the hearing struck out of the cause title.3. The plaintiffs allege that Schalch Street as originally laid out is a public highway and that they, as persons owning land adjoining such highway, have a right of access to it from their land.4. The right is claimed as a private right, for the obstruction of which an action will lie, not because the owners of the land have been injured as to the public right and have sustained special damage, but because of the infringement of the private right, which they have in addition to the right which they possess as members of the general public. They allege an obstruction of this alleged right by the Port Commissioners and sue for a declaration of their right of access for removal of the alleged obstruction and for damages.5. Schalch Street, which was na...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »