Kolkata Court November 1908 Judgments
Umesh Chandra Singha and ors. Vs. Madhu Sudan Khamkat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.119
1. This is an appeal in a matter arising under the provisions of Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, between certain judgment-debtors and a person called Madha Sudan Khamkat.2. The facts are not in controversy; they have been detailed in the judgments of the lower Courts. The mother of Khamkat obtained a decree against one Rash Behary who had obtained another decree against the judgment-debtors, appellants before us. The latter decree was purchased by a person called Das. Khamkat proceeded to levy execution against the judgment-debtors by virtue of attachment of the decree against them by Rash Behary. The matter came up for decision by this Court, and, on the 12th March 1906, the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Geidt, in delivering judgment in an appeal by Khamkat against the present appellants, observed: 'Both the Courts below have found--a finding which is binding on us in second appeal--that the claim in the other suit of which the decree-holder in the present suit desires to o...
Tag this Judgment!MainuddIn Talukdar Vs. Rammoni Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.167
1. In this case a suit was brought for possession of land before the Munsif by whom it was dismissed. This decision was appealed against before the lower appellate Court and the decree of the Munsif was set aside and a decree was given in favour of the plaintiff. Against this decree the present appellant appealed to the High Court and the decree of the lower appellate Court was set aside and that of the Munsif restored. Meanwhile, however, an application had been made under Section 108, Civil Procedure Code, to the lower appellate Court to re-hear the case, which was done with the same result as before, except that whereas the first appeal was heard not in the presence of the present appellant, the second appeal was heard in his presence. A decree was accordingly drawn up dated the 19th February 1906. This decree has never been appealed against, and we are now asked to stay its execution on the ground that the order of the Munsif dismissing the suit having been restored, there is no su...
Tag this Judgment!Gostho Behary Ghosh and anr. Vs. Rohini Gowalini and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.541
1. This is an appeal in a suit in ejectment. The plaintiffs claimed title as legal representatives under the Hindu law of inheritance of one Kailash. The defendant was a concubine of Kailash who claimed title by virtue of a kobala executed by Kailash.2. Both the lower Courts have found that the kobala was genuine. The Munsif, however, held that no consideration passed and that the transaction evidence by the kobala was a paper transaction which was probably brought about by the importunities of Kailash's mistress. There is no evidence, however, we are informed, of any pressure having been put by Kailash's mistress upon Kailash to execute the document in question. It was only a suggestion of the Munsif and it was not based on evidence.3. The Subordinate Judge has not come to any distinct finding whether consideration passed or not, but the consideration stated in the document was only Rs. 49. He is of opinion that the kobala which is registered is sufficient to pass the ownership of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ful Chand Bibee Vs. Nawab Ali Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.740
1. This is a suit in which a woman sues the heirs of a deceased Muhammad-an for the deferred portion of the maharana provided for by a kabinnamah. The defence to the suit was that the woman was divorced in 1304 B.S. or 1897, and that the cause of action accrued at the time of her divorce and that she is therefore Statute-barred under Article 104 of the Limitation Act. To this it is answered that, admitting the facts found by the lower appellate Court, still no divorce took place. The divorce was by talak bring pronounced three times, but it was pronounced in the absence of the wife though in presence of various witnesses including the wife's father.2. The first question, which we have to decide, is whether the absence of the wife makes the pronouncement of the talak void and inefficacious. In our opinion it does not. The point is dealt with in the book of Mr. Ameer Ali in Section 3 of Chapter XII, where he says: 'It is not necessary for the husband himself to pronounce talak in the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Tamijuddi Vs. Asgar Howladar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.942
1. There is no dispute as to the facts of this case. The defendant No. 2 is the superior landlord. The defendant No. 1 holds a plot of land under him. This plot is a portion of a holding held at one time by a raiyat Arman Howladar under the defendant No. 2. In 1889 Arman Howladar granted a lease of it along with other plots of land to the plaintiff. The lease was one from year to year; it was not permanent or for a term of years. The defendant No. 2 dispossessed the plaintiff, but the plaintiff is still in possession of other plots, which he holds under Arman. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of this plot, on the around that he was at least a tenant from year to year under Arman and that the defendants had no right to dispossess him.2. On these facts the Munsif held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed and gave him a decree for possession. The lower appellate Court had come to the conclusion that under Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lochan Singh Vs. Beni Prasad Kumri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal252
Caspersz and Coxe, JJ.1. This appeal comes before us in the course of a long litigation, the termination of which is not yet in sight. On the 30th April 1897, the defendant obtained an ex parts decree in suit No. 29 of 1896 under Section 93 of the North-Western Provinces Rent Act (XII of 1881). That decree, it is conceded, was executed, and one of the execution cases was No. 296 of 1905 in the district of Saran where, it appears' the decree of the Balia Revenue Court had been sent for execution under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Satisfaction not having been obtained, execution was next taken in the district of Bhagalpur, also, in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the decree-holder attached 188 bighas of land situated in that district.2. Thereupon, the plaintiffs, who represent the original judgment-debtors, instituted a title suit No. 686 of 1906, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur, and applied for a temporary injunction to stay the sale in the ex...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lochan Singh and ors. Vs. Beni Prasad Kumari and on Her Death Kuma ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.933
1. This appeal comes before us in the course of a long litigation, the termination of which is not yet in sight. On the 30th April 1897, the defendant obtained an ex parte decree in Suit No. 29 of 1896 under Section 93 of the North-Western Provinces Rent Act (XII of 1881). That decree, it is conceded, was executed, and one of the execution cases was No. 296 of 1905 in the District of Saran where, it appears, the decree of the Balia Revenue Court had been sent for execution under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Satisfaction not having been obtained, execution was next taken in the District of Bhagalpur, also, in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the decree-holder attached 188 bighas of land situated in that District.2. Thereupon, the plaintiffs, who represent the original judgment-debtors, instituted a title suit No. 686 of 1906, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur, and applied for a temporary injunction to stay the sale in the execution case then pend...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Ghosh Vs. Sheikh Esha Huq Mistri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1908
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.58
1. This is an appeal in a suit for accounts brought by the principal against his agent. The plaintiff was the seputnidar of a village called Bijra. The defendant was his collection agent and served as such from the beginning of the year 1301 to 3rd Aughran 1309. On the latter date, he was dismissed. The account was sought for the entire period from 1301 to 1309.2. One of the pleas raised in the defence was whether the suit so far as it covered the period beyond three years from the institution, was barred by limitation. Both the lower Courts gave effect to the plea. As regards the period within the three years, the Munsif held that the defendant was not liable to pay any money on account of that period.3. The only question before us relates to the period from 1301 to 1308. It was contended in the lower Court that the article in the Second Schedule of the Limitation Act applicable to the case was 115 and not 89. The lower appellate Court relied on a decision of this Court Moti Lal Bose ...
Tag this Judgment!Hopcroft Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-06-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal163
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. This is a Rule on the District Magistrate of Mozufferpore to show cause why the case should not be transferred from the file of the trying Magistrate to that of any other Magistrate competent to try the same, on the ground that the trying Magistrate had no jurisdiction to inquire into the matter under Section 443 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Under Section 443 of the Criminal Procedure Code no Magistrate, unless he is a Justice of the Peace, and (except in the case of a District Magistrate or Presidency Magistrate) unless he is a Magistrate of the first class and a European British subject, shall inquire into or try any charge against a European British subject.3. From the Explanation submitted by the Magistrate there is nothing to show that the petitioner is not a European British-born subject, and we are told that the matter was not at all disputed. The question is whether the expression 'inquire into or try any charge' applies to proceedings under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal Panuri and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-06-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.72
1. In this case a conditional order has been passed against the petitioners under Section 133, Cr. P.C., to remove an obstruction from the Grand Trunk Road. This order was passed on the 16th May, 1908, and the petitioners were ordered to remove the obstruction or to show cause on the 26th May, 1908. On the 26th May, 1908, they appeared and put in a petition in which, we are told, they both showed cause against the order and also applied to the Magistrate for the appointment of a jury.2. In our opinion, an application for both these reliefs cannot be made under Section 135, Cr. P.C. That section gives the person, against whom the order is passed, the right to adopt either of these alternatives, either to show cause or else to apply for a jury. If the person proceeded against fails to do either, the consequences prescribed by Section 136 follow. If he adopts the former alternative, the Magistrate is bound to take action under Section 137; and if he adopts the second alternative, then the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »