Kolkata Court July 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.
ijjatulla Bhuyan Vs. Chandra Mohan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal954
Mookerjee, J.1. Under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, valuation for the purpose of court-fees is, in a case like the present, the same as that for jurisdiction; in a suit for mesne profits court-fees are levied on two occasions, at the institution of the suit and again when the mesne profits are ascertained. Does not that show that the value of the suit must be the total value of the mesne profits as ascertained?]2. If the determination of the value is to be determined by the final adjudication, what is to be regarded as the final adjudication--adjudication by the first Court or by the final Court of appeal? The result would be extremely anomalous; the adjudication of the first Court may show the value to be beyond the limits of its jurisdiction, so that the entire trial must be taken to have been void and the plaint must be returned to be presented to proper Court. Some definite meaning must be given to the expression 'value of the original suit' in Section 21 of the Civil Court...
Tribeni Sahu Vs. Bhagwat Bux
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal1037
R.F. Rampini, Acting C.J.1. The questions referred for our decision are as follows:(i) When an appeal has been filed against a decree for money, has the Appellate Court jurisdiction to entertain an application made under the 3rd paragraph of Section 546 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to pass an order staying, pending the disposal of the appeal, the sale of immoveable property of the Judgment-disposal of the in execution of that deoree?(ii)Has the case of Kunj Lal Marwari v. Bahitram Marwari (1904) 8 C.W.N. 381 been correctly decided? In order to answer these questions it seems necessary to examine closely the provision of Sections 545 and 548 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Section 545 provides for the stay of execution of any decree. But gives the Appellate Court, as well as the Court which passed the decree, a discretionary power, on the three conditions therein laid down, to stay execution of an appealable decree, even before an appeal against the decree sought to be executed...
Upendra Kumar Chakravarti Vs. Sham Lal Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal1020
Rampini, Acting, C.J., and Sharfuddin, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Alipore, dated the 16th November 1905.2. The suit is one for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of 102 bighas 10 cottahs of land said to be held by the defendants under the plaintiff.3. A preliminary objection on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents has been taken to the hearing of the appeal, to the effect that the principal respondent, Sham Lal Mandal, died more than six months ago and that no steps have been taken to substitute the names of his heirs in his place. The learned pleader for the appellants admits that the respondent, Sham Lal Mandal, died on the 22nd October 1906, and he presents to day an, application for the substitution of the names of the heirs of the deceased respondent for the name of the deceased, respondent, although, more than six months have elapsed since the 22nd October last.4. There is an allegation in the affidavit of the karpardas of the respon...
Uma Sundari Debi Vs. Benode Lal Pakrashi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal1026
Stephen and Holmwood, JJ.1. The only question which we are now called upon to decide in this appeal is whether in the event of the plaintiff obtaining a partition of the small putni share which she desires to have this Would cause such inconvenience to the other co-sharers, and in this case more particularly to the contesting defendants who are Nos. 9 to 12 only, as to render it inequitable that any partition should be ordered. It is unnecessary for us to go into the previous stages of the case. The learned Judge in the Court below has now decided that the inconvenience would he such that the plaintiff cannot, apply for a partition. We think that that decision cannot he maintained. It is now settled law that a putnidar of a fractional share can partition any property held jointly by himself and some of the defendants although the defendants may he jointly interested with or without other persons in the remaining portion of the estate: see Radha Kanta Shaha v. Bipro Das Roy (1904) 1 C.L...
Agilul HosaIn Vs. Dino Nath Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal996
Stephen and Holmwood, JJ.1. This is an ejectment suit in which the first Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. One of the defendants then appealed to the Subor linate Judge, who modified the decree of the first Court The plaintiff then appealed to the High Court which ordered that the case should be remanded to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and that an inquiry should be made by the Court Ameen to supplement the information which he had already derived from an inquiry based on the map produced by the plaintiff, by comparing the plaintiff's map with that of the defendant. This was accordingly done, and a decree has now been passed by the Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiff.2. It is in the first place urged before us in second appeal from this decision, that the Judge has not come to a proper finding as to the irregularities alleged to exist in the Ameen's report. This is entirely a question of fact. The Judge had before him the final report of the Ameen and con...
Rai Benode Behari Bose and ors. Vs. Rai Pasupati Nath Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1907
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.329
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Brett dated the 1st May, 1907.2. The suit is one brought by the plaintiff to establish his right to the passage of water from a water-course or pyne.3. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree.4. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge that officer found that the plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of the water passage from M.N. to the Ahar A.B.C.D. at the time when he and the defendants' father were joint proprietors of Kunda and Hasowli. The plaintiff declared that he had a right to the flow of water through the channel which leads to his reservoir and he also claimed that he had a right to erect a dam at M.N. and to obstruct the flow of water at another place marked E.F. so that the water should not flow in the direction of the defendants' mouzah through the pyne.5. Now, the Subordinate Judge says that the plaintiff has no such right; and he has dismissed the suit.6. The plaintiff then preferred a second ...
Harmongal NaraIn Singh Vs. Ganaur Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1907
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.309
1. The three points taken support of this appeal are (1) that the suit is premature because the zurpeshgi lease did not expire till June 1904 and the suit was brought on the 18th September 1903; (2) that the proper remedy for the plaintiff was to bring a suit to recover possession as the zurpeshgi bond did not provide for the sale of the property in the event of dispossession and (3) that the deed is invalid as the witnesses fail to prove that it was properly attested.2. The plaintiff's suit was brought on a zurpeshgi patta, dated the 16th September' 1895, and under the terms of that patta it was stipulated that the plaintiff was to remain in possession until the mortgage loan had been repaid. In the plaint it is alleged that on the 30th Bhadra 1309 (1902), defendant No. 1 executed a deed of sale of half of the mortgaged property in favour of defendant No. 2 and deposited with defendant No. 2 the other half share of the mortgage-money due to the plaintiff and that afterwards defendant ...
Balaram Vs. Mangta Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal941
Rampini, Acting C.J.1. This reference raises two very important questions of Hindu law, which, it is no doubt, very desirable that we should decide.2. But at the close of his argument the learned pleader for the defendants, appellants, has raised the question of limitation. He contends that the suit is barred by limitation. The suit is one for foreclosure of a mortgage, by conditional sale. The bond was executed on the 20th January 1887. The due date was the 24th January 1891; and the suit was instituted on the 23rd April 1904, that is, after a period of 13 years. Now, according to the ruling of this Court in the case of Girwar Singh v. Thakur Narain Singh (1887) I.L.R. 14 Calc. 730, the period of limitation prescribed for a suit of this nature is 12 years, as provided in Article 132 of the second schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. The suit is, therefore, apparently barred by limitation. There was a contention raised in the first Court that there had been a payment of a certain qua...
Dindayal Mozumdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal935
Mitra and Caspersz, JJ.1. This is a case of the exercise of the preventive jurisdiction of a Magistrate under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners have been directed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Serajgunge to enter into bonds for Rs. 1,000 each and to furnish two sureties, each for the same amount, to keep the peace for one year. The District Magistrate of Pabna has affirmed the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate.2. The petitioners are servants of the zemindar of Jhikra, an important jute centre in the Serajgunge subdivision. Jhikra is on the Karatia river and during the jute season an extensive trade is carried on there on the bank of the river. The zemindar claims to be the proprietor of the foreshore, and Jhikra with the foreshore is alleged to be in his khas possession. The traders who come to the place with jute have no permanent interest in the land, and the zemindar claims from them certain cesses, for the use of the land and the foreshore, und...
Ram Nath Chowdhry Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal897
R.F. Rampini, A.C.J.1. The question referred to us is, whether an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is bad because it does not state that its operation is confined to two months, or some shorter period, from the making thereof.2. It appears to me that there can be no question as to the answer to be given to this inquiry. Under the provisions of Clause (5) to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is clear that an order under Section 144 only enures for a period of two months, and, therefore, unless there is something in the order which shows that it is intended that the order should remain in force for more than two months, it must be presumed that the order is to be limited to the period of two months specified in the Code. There is no necessity to state in the order that such an order shall remain in force for two months only.3. Then, it is clear that the order in this case was passed in accordance with Form XXI of Schedule V of the Code of Criminal ...