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.
Jagannath Saha Vs. Chairman of Berhampur Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1907
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.55
1. The facts of this case are fully set out in the judgment of the Court below. It is sufficient to say here that the plaintiff practically sues for a declaration that the land on which he has built a house is his and not a public road and for the withdrawal of an order issued by the Magistrate at the instance of the Municipal Commissioners of Berhampore directing him to demolish it. The District Judge has dismissed the suit, because he considers that the order complained of was passed by the District Magistrate in a judicial capacity, because he has not been made a party and because no suit for an injunction lies against him in the Munsif's Court.2. The plaintiff appeals on the grounds (1) that the suit is not barred under Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, (2) that the settlement of the land made with him by the Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners is binding on the Municipality, (3) that the plaintiff is not estopped from disputing the defendant's title to the land, (4) that ...
Sato Koer Vs. Gopal Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal929
Brett and Coxe, JJ.1. The present petitioner is the widow of one Narain Ram who died on the 4th April 1907 leaving her as his widow, she being his second wife, and a daughter by his first wife.2. On the 20th April 1907 Gopal Sahu and Sahadeo Ram, brothers of Narain Ram, put in an application under Act XIX of 1841 alleging that they were members of a joint Hindu family under the Mitakshara law with Narain Earn, that on his death all the joint property devolved by survivorship on them as member of the joint family, that the widow had no right to the property, and that the property was in danger of being wasted by her in collusion with her relations. They therefore prayed for an order declaring their title to the property and directing that possession of the same should be delivered to them on their furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 5,000. They also asked for an order that an inventory should be taken. An inventory was taken by the order of the District Judge by his Nazir, and a citat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›