Kolkata Court May 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.
Jogendra Chandra Sen Vs. Wazidunnissa Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal860
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question which arises on this appeal is how, when a Division Bench of this Court has made an order dismissing an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council with costs, the order as to costs is to be enforced. Until the present discussion there has been, I believe, no doubt that the usual and proper course is to transmit the order to the lower Court for execution. But it is now urged that the Court has no jurisdiction to do this, which means, in effect, that the Court has no power to enforce its own orders. I hope that is not so; and, I do not think that it is so. There is apparently no section in the Code of Civil Procedure which applies directly to the case But the Code is not exhaustive, and it seems to me that when the Court bad jurisdiction, as undoubtedly it had, to make the order as to costs, there is an inherent power in the Court to have that order carried into effect; otherwise the order would be a farce. I do not say that Section ...
Gopi Chand Bothra Vs. Kasimunnessa Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal836
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. I propose to deal with this case very shortly, because I think, so far as this Court is concerned, the matter is concluded by authority, and I have no desire to multiply them. The question in short, which we are asked to decide, is whether where the same property is under attachment by two Courts of different grades, a sale effected by the Court of a lower grade is a nullity. If the matter was res Integra and apart from authority, my view would be that the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court to sell by Section 284 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not taken away by the provisions of Section 285. I think the language of Section 285 is amply met by treating it as a directory Section dealing with procedure, and not intended, to take away the jurisdiction which had been conferred by the previous section. This view enables us to give effect to both these sections of the Code. If jurisdiction is given by one section of an Act, and it is contended that it has been...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Imadul Huq
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal844
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit to restrain the Municipal Corporation of Calcutta from exercising the statutory powers which they enjoy under Section 841 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, (Act III of 1899, B.C.).2. It is a little difficult, in the somewhat invoked judgment of the lower Appellate Court, to ascertain with precision what the facts are. But as far as I understand them, they are as follows:--The structure or the projection which the Corporation seek remote under Section 341 of the Act is situated on one side of Gopalnagar Road, in the environs of Calcutta. It appears that the plaintiff or his predecessors in title have built a verandah adjoining their house, and the pillars of the verandah, which support the verandah, are sunk down into the soil between the street and a drain which runs between the street and the front of the plaintiff's house. The drain is covered up; there is a platform upon it, and, the verandah projecting from the home and attached to the house i...
Kolha Koer Vs. Muneswar Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal840
Stephen and Coxe, JJ.1. In this case proceedings were instituted under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and after the parties had put in their written statements, the Magistrate, on the 21st December, made the order: 'From the statements of the two parties I am inclined to think that both are in some kind of possession. They are all of one family.' He then gives them time to compromise the matter. Subsequently on the 21st January he notes: 'There is no compromise. I can not decide which party is in possession of the land and house, and, therefore, attach the same under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code.'2. Against this order the second party teas obtained this Rule to show cause why it should not he set aside. The ground Suggested for setting it aside is that it appeal's that on the day that the order was made the Magistrate had before him nothing except the written statements of the parties, and possibly some documents, though none have been entered as having passe...
Hari Mohan Misser Vs. Surendra Narayan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal718
Arthur Wilson, J.1. The respondent represents the owner of a ten-and-a-half-anna share in a putni tenure of considerable extent, Turuf Inaitpur Katakose, in the district of Purnea. The putni included amongst other properties a holding to which the present suit relates. This holding had become vested in Ram Kumar Singh, who, it is not disputed, held as an. occupancy raiyat, enjoying as such the rights conferred upon a tenant of that class by the Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885). Ram Kumar Singh, in conjunction with some of the owners of shares in the putni, took steps for the purpose of growing indigo on the holding, and for the erection of an indigo factory within its limits.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purnea, by the owners of the ten-and-a-half anna share in the putni, to obtain an injunction restraining the carrying out of the proposed changes. It is unnecessary to consider the constitution of the suit. It is enoug...
Annada Pershad Panja Vs. Prasannamoyi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal711
Collin, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a decision of the High Court of Bengal affirming the decision of the District Judge passed on remand, which had affirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff's claim was to recover possession of certain land from the defendants, together with mesne profits. The facts were complicated, and several difficult questions of fact and law arose for decision; but the only question raised before their Lordships on this appeal is whether Article 95 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, is a bar to the plaintiff's claim.2. The land in question is known as Mehal Arjunbani and is patni tenure which was once held by a lady named Damayanti Debi; she died leaving six daughters, of whom five, acting as executors of their mother's will, of which they had obtained probate, granted a darpatni, or under-lease, to one Jogendra Nath Singh, on 25th May 1885.3. On the 8th February 1891, the five daughters (the sixth was then dead) sold their p...
Nandu Sahu and ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1907
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.633a
1. The facts relating to the dispute between the parties are stated in the judgment of this Court bearing date the 6th August 1904. The effect of that judgment, as regards the mutual relations of the parties, is that the plaintiffs were mortgagor's and were entitled to redeem the mortgage executed on the 18th August 1888. The principal intermediate transactions, by which the proprietary right in the hypothecated property was alleged by the defendants to have passed to them, were held by this Court to be inoperative. The case was sent back to the lower Court for taking an account as if an account was to be taken in an ordinary redemption suit. The defendants were held to be entitled to the costs up to the date of the decree of this Court on the basis of their having been mortgagees. The mortgagors, the plaintiffs, were held to be entitled to redeem.2. On remand the lower Court has taken accounts between the parties and has given a decree substantially in favour of the plaintiffs.3. The ...
Baijnath Ram Goenka Vs. Nand Kumar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal677
Rampini, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought (i) to obtain a declaration that an order by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur, dated the 21st June 1900, reviewing and setting aside an order of his of the 23rd March, 1900, by which he had set aside a sale for arrears of Government revenue, was illegal and ultra vires, and to recover possession and mesne profits of the mehal, and (ii) in the alternative to set aside the sale on the ground of irregularity in the service of processes and of inadequacy of price resulting therefrom.2. The facts are that the plaintiff's mehal was sold by the Collector of Monghyr on the 2nd January, 1900 for arrears of revenue. Appeals were afterwards preferred to the Commissioner both by the plaintiff and by certain co-sharers of his. The minor plaintiff's appeal was dismissed on the ground that he had not made the auction-purchaser a party. The appeal of the other co-sharers was successful and the sale was set aside on the 23rd March, 1900. On the 21st J...
Rajeshwar Mullick Vs. Gopeshwar Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal828
Chitty, J.1. This is a suit by Rajeshwar Mullick against his brother Gopeshwar Mullick and his nephew Gorachand Mullick to have the rights of the plaintiff under the will of his uncle Lalit Mohan Mullick ascertained and declared. The second defendant Gorachand has not appeared to defend the suit, and the contest has therefore been between the two brothers, Rajeshwar and Gopeshwar. The sole question in the case is as to the validity of Clause 5 of the will of Lalit Mohan Mullick, whereby he directed as follows:--'My wife Srimatee Sudevi Moni Dasi shall on my demise take the money which I have been, receiving for the expenses of services, according to my turn...to Sri Sri Ishawar Radha Gobind Jee established by my grandmother, the late Chitra Dasi, and perform the said services during her lifetime, and I confer on my wife Sudevi Moni Dasi the same right that I now have to the Ishawar Jew's jewellery, plate, etc., and on her demise I confer on my nephew Sriman Rajeshwar Mullick Babaji the...
Rahmat Karim Vs. Abdul Karim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal672
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgage suit. The mortgage was created on the 22nd of April 1897 and contained a covenant to pay the mortgage money. The due date was the 6th of May 1898. The suit was instituted on the 19th of April 1900, and a decree was made in that suit on the 19th of July 1900. It was a decree in effect ordering the property mortgaged to be sold to realise the judgment-debt. Some property was sold on the 17th of November 1902, and the sale was confirmed on the 19th of March 1902. On the 28th of March 1905, the mortgagee made an application under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, asking the Court upon the footing that the proceeds of the sale were insufficient to pay what was due to him, to pass a decree for the balance. The Court declined to pass any such decree, on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. The only question we have to consider on this appeal is whether it is so barred.2. The view of the District Jud...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »