Kolkata Court March 1907 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.
Prabhu NaraIn Singh Vs. Saligram Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal576
Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ.1. On the 17th March 1902, the Maharaja of Benares, who is the appellant before us, instituted a suit for arrears of rent against the defendant respondent in the Court of the Native Commissioner or Subordinate Judge of Kondh, a place situated within what is known as his family domains. On the 12th July 1902 the Subordinate Judge, according to the statement of the pleader for the defendant, made a decree in full in favour of the plaintiff. On the 12th July 1905 the decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Saran. The judgment-debtor resisted execution on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree. The Subordinate Judge held that the decree in question might be treated as a decree of a Court established by the authority of the Governor-General in Council in the territories of a Foreign Prince or State and might be executed under Section 229 of the Civil Procedure Code within the jurisdiction of his Co...
Laliteshwar Singh Vs. Rameshwar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal619
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. This is an application on behalf of the first defendant to withdraw the leave granted to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to institute the suit in this Court. The suit was instituted on the 19th May 1906, and leave was obtained from the Registrar under Rule 515-A. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has not been properly obtained inasmuch as such leave can be granted only by a Judge of this Court. The question therefore arises whether Rule 515-A which authorises the Registrar or Master to grant leave is ultra vires. The Rule in so far as it is applicable to the matter now before us is as follows:515-A. All applications of the description specified hereunder shall be made to the Registrar or Master whose orders thereon shall be final; provided that the Registrar or Master shall refer any such application to be heard and determined by a Judge in Chambers, upon its appearing either th...
Banwari Lal and ors. Vs. Sheo Sankar Misser and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1907
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.670
1. On the 18th March 1905 the plaintiffs-respondents commenced the action out of which the present appeal arises for a declaration that they formed with the defendant second party a joint Mitakshara family, that the subject matter of dispute formed a part of the joint family property, that the deed of sale, executed by the defendant second party on the 19th March 1893, is null and void, and that the plaintiffs are consequently entitled to recover possession and mesne profits from the date of dispossession to the date of suit as well as future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of recovery of possession. The plaintiffs valued the property in dispute at Rs. 400 and approximately stated the mesne profits antecedent to suit at Rs. 1,082-9-15. They paid Court-fees on the plaint upon Rs. 1,086-5-15, namely, upon ten times the Government revenue payable for the disputed property under Section 7, Sub-section 5 Clause (a) of the Court Fees Act, as also upon the amount of mesne pr...
Abdul Rahman Vs. Amir Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal612
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question submitted to us are the following: (i) 'Whether when the name of an assignor is removed from the record of a suit, and that of an assignee is substituted in its place, the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act are applicable? (ii) Whether the case of Harak Chand v. Deonath Sahay (1897) I.L.R. 25 Calc. 409, or that of Suput Singh v. Imrit Tewari (1880) I.L.R. 5 Cal. 720 has been correctly decided?' I think that the first question ought to be answered in the affirmative, and that as between the two oases referred to in the second question, the decision in Harak Chand v. Deonath Sahay (1897) I.L.R. 25 Calc. 409 ought to prevail. If a person who has not been on the record is substituted as a plaintiff in the place of the original plaintiff under Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the person so substituted must be taken to be brought on the record subject to the law of limitation applicable to the case. There is nothing in Section 37...
Begu Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal551
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The practical question which we have to consider on this reference is whether the case of In the matter of Krishna Gobinda Dutt (1905) 9 C.W.N. 859 was rightly decided. The further discussion to-day leads me to answer that question in the affirmative, notwithstanding the pessimistic opinion of the learned Judges who referred the case, that the results of such a ruling appeared to them likely to he disastrous to the administration of justice.2. The question simply turns upon the true meaning and effect of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The expressions in the section 'is of opinion that there is ground,' 'committed before it or brought under its notice in the course of a judicial proceeding,' seem to indicate with some clearness that it is the Judge alone who tries the case who can summarily, and at once, send the case for enquiry to the nearest Magistrate. It is a power conferred upon the Court which may be exercised summarily if an offence h...
Amar Chandra Kundu Vs. Sebak Chand Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal642
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The application from which this reference has sprung was one under Section 234 of the Code of Civil Procedure to execute the decree against the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. The present objector is undoubtedly the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor, and therefore, prima-facie, unless he can show that the judgment-debtor left no self-acquired property, is liable to be brought upon the record under Section 234. If he be once properly brought on the record under that Section, the question then is whether the liability of the ancestral property, which the objector took by survivorship under the Mitakshara system of Hindu Law, and not, as heir, can be determined in the execution proceedings? The question is one merely of procedure: there is no real substance in it one way or the other; for, the present objector would be able in a proceeding under Section 244 to raise all the objections or defences that he could raise in a...
In Re: Nirojini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal706
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application under Section 33 of the Probate and Administration Act. The applicant applies that letters of administration may be granted to him for the use and benefit of his wife who is a minor, and a preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this application.2. I deferred judgment in order to make enquiries whether or not there has been any practice on the point taken.3. The objection, which is raised, is that the applicant should in the first place have applied to the Court to be assigned the guardian of his wife in order to enable him to apply for letters of administration, and that until this is done the matter cannot further proceed. It is submitted that it is only after such application has been made and granted that the applicant is in a position to ask, as such assigned guardian, for letters of administration for the use and benefit of the minor. Upon that application being made, citations should issue.4. From enquiries I have made, it do...
Abu Bakar Vs. Peary Mohan Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal451
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question on this appeal arises in connection with certain proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Certain land was taken by Government, and there were three parties interested in the apportionment of the compensation. No question arises as to the amount of such compensation. Those three parties are (i) the zemindar, (ii) the tenants, who, it is conceded, hold permanently and (iii) the under-tenant. The Collector made his award. He awarded a six annas share of the compensation money attributable to the land itself to the zemindar, and apportioned the rest between the tenants and the under-tenant. We are not concerned with any question between the tenants and the under-tenant, as between themselves they have arranged matters. The Collector has also awarded Rs. 997-4 in respect of the value of the trees. Then the tenants took the objection that the amount allotted to the zemindar was far in excess of what the law allowed him; and he applied to the Collec...
Rebati Mohan Das Vs. Ahmed Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1907
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.590
Mookerjee, J.1. The subject matter of the litigation out of which this appeal arises admittedly belonged originally to a Mahomedan by name Haji Rahamat Khan, who died about 15 or 16 years before the suit. Haji Rahamat Khan had two wives Manwar Bibi and Ayesha Bibi, by the former of whom he had two sons, Akmal Khan and Esop Khan. Shortly before his death, on the 20th September 1886, he made arrangements for the residence and maintenance of his wife Ayesha Bibi and she executed an ekrarnamah by which she gave up her prospective right to the property of her husband. After the death of Haji Rahamat, his property passed into the possession of his widow Manwar Bibi and her two sons. The sons dealt with the property as if it belonged to them exclusively and executed a mortgage in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 sued to enforce his security, obtained a decree and asked for the sale of the mortgaged properties. The plaintiff had obtained a Hebabiliwaz from Manwar Bibi on the 14th Jan...
Shyama Sundari Dasya Vs. Mahomed Zarip and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1907
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.693
1. The plaintiffs-respondents sued for declaration of their title to certain specified shares in five villages, mentioned in the plaint, alleged by them to be included in zamindary of Mir Abdullah, forming Taulk No. 87 of the Collectorate of Mymensing. The Courts below have made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The second defendant has appealed to this Court and on her behalf the decision of the Subordinate Judge has been challenged substantially on two grounds, namely, first that the suit is barred under article 14 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act, and secondly, that the Subordinate Judge has erred in relying upon an entry made under the Land Registration Act as affording any evidence 'upon the question of title.2. In support of his first contention, the learned Vakil for the appellant has pointed out that the order under the Land Registration Act by which the application of the plaintiffs to have their names registered was refused, was made on the 20th February 1900, but the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »