Kolkata Court April 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.
Harabati Vs. Satyabadi Behara
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal636
Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ.1. This is an application to review our judgment in the case of Satyabadi Behara v. Harabati (1907) I.L.R. 34 Calc. 223 ; 5 C.L.J. 192 by which the judgment of the District Judge was reversed and the decree of the Subordinate Judge restored. We are invited to review our judgment on two grounds namely, first, that it was not competent to this Court to entertain the appeal which lay, it is suggested, to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces, and, secondly, that the entire claim ought not to have been dismissed as barred by the principle of res judicata. The first of these points was not suggested when the appeal was originally heard; but as it raises a question of jurisdiction we have heard the learned vakil for the petitioner at full length. The second ground refers to a matter which is discussed in our judgment.2. The facts so far as it is necessary to state them for the elucidation of the first point may be briefly outlined. The sui...
Hari Charan Singh Vs. Chandra Kumar Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal787
Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit to set aside a sale held under the Public Demands Recovery Act (I of 1895) as amended by Act I of 1897.2. The plaintiff was the owner of a house at 15 Dixon's Lane in Calcutta and of four collieries in the district of Burdwan. He, on the 17th October 1901, mortgaged this house and a six-annas share in the collieries to the defendant Elias Meyer. His contention is that all road-cess in respect of the collieries was payable by this defendant who, however, contests his liability. Road-cess which is a public demand, was admittedly in arrear and a certificate was admitted duly made and filed for its recovery under the Act by the Certificate Officer of Burdwan, Notice under Section 10 is said to have been served on the 12th July 1902. This is denied. I will deal with the point later. On the 25th July directions were given to enforce the certificate and the case was transferred for execution under Sections 223, 224 of the Civil Procedure Code to the Certificate ...
Dil Gazi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal686
Stephen and Coxe, JJ.1. The only question we have to consider in this appeal is, whether the accused ought to be acquitted under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.2. There is no doubt that he cut his wife's throat in a brutal way without any rational motive, that he was captured at once, and made no attempt to escape or resist arrest.3. There is no doubt that his mind was at the time unsound. He apparently had definite delusions as to dangers that threatened his wife; his disease affected his intercourse with his neighbours, and his cultivation of his crops, in both of which he showed a failure of his reasoning powers. His climbing a tree in search of his pillow indicates a state of mind resembling that generally described as idiocy. In view of the uncertainty that always exists as to how far a diseased state of mind extends, and in view of the difficulty, that is never absent from cases like this, of obtaining any trustworthy evidence, we find that the facts on the record prove that...
Dildar Ali Khan Vs. Bhawani Sahai Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal878
Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for partition of joint property, and the only portion of the decree which is challenged is that which relates to costs. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that the appeal ought not to be entertained, as the question of costs was purely in the discretion of the lower Court. It is well settled, however, that an appeal will lie upon a question of costs when a matter of principle is involved: Bunwari Ball v. Chowdhry Drup Nath Singh (1886) I.L.R. 12 Calc. 179, Mothingan v. Mozari Sajad (1885) I.L.R. 12 Calc. 271; and as an important question of principle is raised before us, the appeal is maintainable. The preliminary objection, therefore, is overruled.2. The facts, so far as it is necessary to state them, to elucidate the question of principle raised on behalf of the appellant, may be briefly outlined. The plaintiff and the defendants are joint owners of the zemindari which i...
Aldridge Vs. Barrow
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal662
Chitty, J.1. This is a suit by six members of the Calcutta. Police force against the editor and proprietor of the paper known, as the 'Indian Daily News,' to recover Rs. 20,000 as damages for libel. The alleged libel is contained in two articles which appeared in the issue of the above paper on the 17th and 19th July 1905 and in an article reproduced in the 'Indian Daily News' on the latter date from another paper, the 'Statesman.' The articles dealt with what was known as the 'Sobha Bazar, murder case.' The plaintiffs were not alluded to by name, but aspersions were cast on the Calcutta Police with reference to their action in that matter, and the plaintiffs who, it is said, were the officers, or some of the officers, in charge of that case, have taken the remarks as applying to themselves, and making common cause, have filed this suit for the purpose of vindicating their several characters. Five issues were raised:(i) Is the suit bad by reason of misjoinder of parties and of causes o...
Nemai Chandra Bose and ors. Vs. Mohamed Basir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1907
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.173
1. The appellants were claimants Nos. 7 to 9 in the lower Court, and they claimed proprietary interest in the land under acquisition, or, in the alternative the interest of permanent tenants. Their claim of proprietary interest has been abandoned and very properly abandoned, by the learned Vakil who has argued their case. The only question that remains for 'our decision is whether they have succeeded in making put a case of permanent tenancy.2. The kobala of the 27th September 1842, executed by one Srimati Bimola Sundari Dasi in favour of Jadub Chandra Bose, the predecessor of the claimants shows that she had a tenancy right in respect of 4 bighas 2 1/2 cottas of land, tanks and trees, bearing a rental of sicca Rs. 24-12. The land was described in the kobala as garden land, and the kobala further stated that the husband of Bimola had purchased the land and had been in enjoyment and possession of it and that she had inherited it as the heiress of her husband. At that time the tenancy st...
Fink Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal599
Mitra and Caspersz, JJ.1. By three different declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), dated respectively, the 18th June 1903, and 21st July 1903 and the 29th November 1903, the Local Government notified its intention to acquire three adjoining pieces of land in Ichapur, in the 24-Pergannahs, for the extension of the gunpowder factory, for the construction of a siding into the small arms factory and rolling mills, and for extension of the rolling mills. The proprietary right in the lands was Vested in the same persons, though the tenants were different. Some of the claimants, however, asserted rights adverse to the proprietors. For the purposes of the ascertainment of compensation the Collector under the Act of 1894 subdivided the lands into a larger number of plots, and both he and the learned Special Judge, dealing with the references made to him under Section 18 of the Act, have disposed of the claims to compensation under different awards. The result has...
Gurdeo Singh and Vs. Chandrikah Singh and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1907
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal193
Mookerjee, J.1. The circumstances, which gave rise to the litigation out of which the present appeals arise are in some measure complicated, but although they were in controversy between the parties in the Court below, the facts found by the Subordinate Judge have not been challenged before us. These facts, in so far as it is necessary to state them for the disposal of the questions of law raised in the two appeals, may be briefly stated. On the 23rd November 1886, the first four defendants in the present suit executed a mortgage in favour of the father of defendant No. 14. The property comprised in the security consisted of a share in Mehal Raipur Chur, which included three villages, Raipur Khas, Kachnath and Burkavi. The mortgagors undertook to repay the loan on the 13th June 1889. Subsequently, on the 1st February 1898, the plaintiffs purchased from the mortgagee his rights under the security of 1886, and, on the 15th June 1900, commenced the present action to enforce them. The defe...
Gurdeo Singh and ors. Vs. Chandrika Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1907
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.913
Mookerjee, J.1. The circumstances which gave rise to the litigation out of which the present appeals arise are in some measure complicated, but although they were in controversy between the parties in the Court below, the facts found by the Subordinate Judge have not been challenged before us. These facts, in so far as it is necessary to state them for the disposal of the questions of law raised in the two appeals, may be briefly stated. On the 23rd November 1886, the first four defendants in the present suit executed a mortgage in favour of the father of defendant No. 14. The property comprised in the security consisted of a share in Mehal Raipur Chur, which included three villages, Raipur Khas, Kachnath and Burkavi, The mortgagors undertook to repay the loan on the 13th June 1889. Subsequently, on the 1st February 1898, the plaintiffs purchased from the mortgagee his rights under the security of 1886, and, on the 15th June 1900, commenced the present action to enforce them. The defen...
Jadu Lal Sahu Vs. Lowis
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal848
Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling on the respondent, Maharani of Bettiah, through the manager under the Court of Wards, to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Tirhut, dated the 6th February 1907, refusing to revoke the sanctions granted by the Subordinate Judge of Mozufferpore by his orders, dated the 29th November and the 4th December 1906, should not be set aside in respect of the prosecution of the petitioners, who are eleven in number, under Sections 193, 465, 467, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that the petitioners 1 to 3 purchased, together with the other members of the family, certain shares in Mehal Motihari, town No. 644, from Musammat Barkatunnessa of Gaya on the 25th July 1904. The consideration of the said deed of sale was stated to be Rs. 19,214 in cash and currency notes, Rs. 6,286 by way of paying off old bond debts, and Rs. 13,967 on account of four promissory notes executed by the said Musammat Barkatunnessa; total R...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »