Kolkata Court June 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.
Ram Chandra Marwari Vs. Mudeshwar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1158
Pratt and Ormokd, JJ.1. The plaintiff having in execution of a money decree against Sureswar Singh attached the rights and interests of his judgment-debtor in 4 mouzahs of Pergannah Padri, a claim to the same was successfully made by Sureswar Singh's father, Maharaj Kumar Guneshwar Singh. Hence the present suit to establish the right of Sureswar Singh, since deceased, to the said property, and for a declaration that his share is liable to sale in execution of the plaintiff's decree. The claim was contested by the sons and grandsons of Maharaj Kumar Guneshwar Singh, as well as by Gruneshwar Singh, who however has subsequently died. The Subordinate Judge found that Sureshwar Singh lived in a joint family with his father and as a member of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitaksbara Law, he enjoyed the usufruct of the property in suit, that he was in debt to the plaintiff under a decree, and in execution thereof there was an attachment of the mouzahs in question before his death. Thes...
Surendea NaraIn Sinha Vs. Hari Mohan Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1201
Brett and Gupta, JJ.1. The reasons assigned by the learned Scb-Judge for allowing the defendants to retain possession of the barari lands to the exclusion of the plaintiff appear to us to be threefold. First, that there was no ouster or dispossession of the plaintiff; second, that there was acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff; and third, the defendants 'grodualy improved the land by spending some labour and capital and established a bazar and held the annual' Baruni Mela.' The Sub Judge has observed' The plaintiff or the defendants 4 to 6 were not in possession at the time and it was open to the defendant No. 1 to hold it, Here there was no forcible dispossession of any cosharer, for the land was Naya Barari or newly formed laud.' 'No suit was brought by the plaintiff for this bnrari land, though he hastened to bring the injunction suit for stoppage of the erection of the buildings for the Manoharpur factory, and for a period of seven years he by his silence tacitly acquiesced in...
Behari Lal Seal and ors. Vs. Maharajadhiraj Bijoy Chand Mahatap Bahadu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1906
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.307
Rampini, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows. The plaintiff who is the zemindar, sued for the rent of a putni, and, under Regulation VIII of 1819, the putni was sold for the arrears of rent. It was purchased by one Peary Mohan Roy for Rs. 15,000 on the 18th May 1900. The surplus sale proceeds were Rs. 13,614-11. Oat of this amount the defendants Nos. 1 to 9 withdrew from Court a sum of Rs. 4,469-9. These defendants were the creditors of the defaulting putinidars. Meanwhile, the defaulting putnidars brought a suit for the setting aside of the sale, and the sale was set aside on the 14th August 1900. The zemindar was then obliged to refund to the purchaser Rs. 15,000; and he now sues to recover the amount which the defendants Nos. 1 to 9 took out of Court.2. The lower Court has given the plaintiff a decree.3. The defendants Nos. 1 to 9 appeal to us, and on their behalf it is contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them.4. I am, however, of opinion that the plai...
Akshoy Kumar Mitra Vs. Gopal Kamini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1010
Rampini, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are co-sharer landlords. They have each an 8 annas share of the landlord's interest in the holding. The defendant No. 3 is the tenant of the whole holding, having purchased the interests of the defendants 1 and 2, the old tenants. The plaintiffs have hitherto been collecting the rent of their shares separately. Now that the holding is held by one tenant, they jointly sue him for the whole rent. The defence is that the plaintiffs having collected their shares of the rent separately for many years cannot now sue jointly. The lower Courts have given effect to this plea of the defendant and have dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiffs appeal. On their behalf it has been contended that they are entitled to sue jointly, if they please, and that there is nothing from which can be inferred an implied contract (for there is admittedly no express contract) never to collect the rent otherwise than separately. The appellant's pleader relies on (a) the dictum ...
Shaik Babu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1036
Mitra and Holmwood, JJ.1. On the information of the Inspector of the Colootola Police station the petitioner was, on the 17th April 1906, called upon, under Section 110 of the Code, to show cause why he should not execute a bond for Rs. 75 with one surety for Rs. 75 for his good behaviour for one year. The case was taken up on the 24th April by the third Presidency Magistrate, when according to the order-sheet five witnesses for the prosecution and nine for the defence were examined. There is, however, no record of the evidence. On the same day, the Magistrate directed that the petitioner should execute a bond for eight months with one surety, and in case of non-compliance he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months.2. On the application of the petitioner we issued a rule to show cause why the order of the third Presidency Magistrate should not be set aside on the ground that no evidence was recorded.3. The Magistrate has in his explanation relied on Section 362 of...
Srinath Pal Chowdhury Vs. Girindra Chandra Pal Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1906
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.598
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The amount involved in the suit itself is indeed very small. It is Rs. 230 and the question we have to determine on the present occasion is whether the decree involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Bs. 10,000 or upwards within the meaning of Section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The decree of this Court we might here mention reversed the decree of the Court below and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to a certificate if he can show that he decree appealed against involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Rs. 10,000 or upwards. It appears that the plaintiffs or the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 as aslo defendants Nos. 6 to 10 are co-sharers in certain zemindaris. These co-sharers purchased for themselves different holdings from different tenants and the plaintiff sought to recover from defendan...
Jagadis Chandra Deo Dhabal Vs. Satrughan Deo Dhabal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1065
Brett and Gupta, JJ.1. The present suit is the outcome of a previous suit, No. 35 of 1891, instituted by Iswar Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb, the father of the present plaintiff, against defendant No. 1, Raja Satrugban Deo Dhabal, to hare his right declared to succeed as heir to the Raj of Dhalbhoom on the death of Raja Ram Chunder Dhal No. Ill and to recover possession of the property from the defendant. In that suit, a petition of compromise was filed on the 25th November 1892, and the suit was decreed according to the terms of the compromise on the 30th November 1892.2. The terms of the compromise, in brief, were that Raja Satrughan Deo Dhabal was to remain as Raja during his lifetime; that on his death his children, if any, would succeed; that if he died childless, the estate was to go to Iswar Chandra Deo Dhabal. Further, Raja Satrughan agreed to execute in favour of Iswar Chandra a putni lease of a compact portion of the Dhalbhoom estate yielding an annual income of Rs. 9.07;' and payin...
Jagatdhar NaraIn Prasad and Gopi Lal Vs. A.M. Brown
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1133
Brett and Gupta, JJ.1. The plaintiffs, who are the members of a firm of merchants and agents carrying on business under the style of Messrs. Finlay, Muir & Co., Calcutta, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to recover from defendant No. 1, Mr. Carruthers, indigo-planter, the sums of (1) Rs. 1,10,393, (2) Rs. 1,13,955, and (3) Rs. 1,75,752, total Kb. 4,00,100, said to be due on three separate accounts.2. It seems that the Nyagaon Indigo Concern in the district of Monghyr originally belonged to Mr. Lawrence J. Crowdy and that he sold the same on the 8th of April 1894 by a registered deed to the defendants Mr. Carrthers and to Mr. Charles G. H. Rennie for Rs. 80,000. The sum of Re. 20,000 was paid over at the time of sale to the vendor, but the purchasers being unable then to pay the balance of Rs 60,000, executed in favour of the vendor a mortgage in the English form on the 8th April 1894, by which they agreed to pay up the balance in five instalments of Rs. 12,000 each, the...
Mariamnissa Bibi Vs. Joynab Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1101
Rampini, J.1. This appeal is against a decision of Mr. Deb, the District Judge of Hooghly, dated the 21st January 1895. The facts are that on the death of one Mahomed Mehdi, his two widows Mariana and Joynab Bibi brought suits to recover their dowers from the estate of their deceased husband. Mariam Bibi's suit was No. Ill of 1903, and Joynab's No. 112 of 1903.2. In both of these suits there wag a contention as to the liability of two houses for the dowers sued for. In Mariam Bibi's suit, she alleged that she had bought these houses with her own money, and that they were not liable for her dower. Joynab Bibi as defendant traversed in that suit that statement. In Joynab Bibi's suit she alleged that these two houses were part of Mahomed Mehdi's estate and sought to have them declared liable for her dower, while Mariam Bibi as defendant contended that they had been purchased with her money and were not so liable.3. The question as to ownership of the houses and their liability for the cla...
Sukkan Teli Vs. Bipad Teli and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal48
Rampini, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover damages from the defendant for defamation.2. The lower Court has held that the person defamed was the plaintiff's wife and therefore the suit is not maintainable by the plaintiff, that there was no special damage suffered by tire plaintiff, and that for this reason, if the suit lay, the plaintiff could not recover damages.3. The plaintiff appeals. His pleader's arguments are(1) that there was special damage,(2) that the words alleged to have been used by the defendant were defamatory in themselves, and(3) that the plaintiff was himself defamed and that conse-quently the plaintiff was entitled to sue.4. It is clear that the defendant is alleged to have used words, which not only defamed the plaintiff's wife, but the plaintiff. They imputed unchastity to the plaintiff's wife, and that the plaintiff not with standing this fact, cohabited with her and ate the food cooked by her and that he had lost his caste...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »