Kolkata Court August 1908 Judgments
Rajbansi Roy and ors. Vs. Mahabir Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.121
1. The essential point in this case, as it has been laid before us, may be briefly stated. The property in suit amounting to five cowris odd was originally the property of one Bharosan. In July 1882 he mortgaged four cowris to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants. He died in November 1882. Very shortly after his death, two of his sons mortgaged about 2 1/2 cowris to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and one Pyari Roy. At the end of 1883, the plaintiffs purchased the whole of the five cowris odd in execution of a money-decree. The appellants and Pyari Roy sued on the mortgage of November 1882 and obtained a decree on the 18th May 1892. The property mortgaged, that is to say 2 1/2 cowris, was ultimately sold on the 15th December 1895. The plaintiffs had been made parties to that suit in the capacity of purchasers under the money-decree of 1883. Subsequent to the decree in that suit and before the sale, the plaintiffs had, on the 22nd March 1893, purchased the four c...
Tag this Judgment!Prosanno Kumar Bose Vs. Sarat Shoshi Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal86
Brett, J.1. The appellants in these four appeals are the four sons and the respondents are the three married daughters of Saroda Moyi Basu. On the 15th June 1853, Saroda Moyi received a gift from her father of taluk Roy Chandra Sarma No. 5480. This was after her marriage. On the 7th October 1903 she died, leaving four sons and three daughters her surviving. Three of the sons, other than the appellant in appeal No. 2095 of 1906, applied to the Collector to be registered as heirs of the taluk by right of inheritance from their mother. They were opposed by the three daughters, and, on the 24th August 1904, the applications of the sons were refused and an order was passed to register the three daughters as proprietors of the taluk by right of inheritance from Saroda Moyi Basu. The four brothers then filed four suits on the 5th July 1905 and following days, praying for declaration of their title each, to one-fourth share in the taluk and for recovery of possession.2. In the Court of first i...
Tag this Judgment!Hurdwary Mull Vs. Ahmed Musaji Selaji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.371
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application for an order that an award made in a certain arbitration be filed in Court under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899.2. The submission, or rather the two submissions, to arbitration are contained in two contract-notes both dated the 23rd December 1904, relating to the sale of certain B. Twills bags sold on account of Messrs. Hurdwary & Co., to Messrs. Ebrahim Solemon & Co. The submission which is in identical terms in both notes is in the following terms:Any dispute whatsoever arising on or out of this contract shall be referred to arbitration, under the Rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce applicable for the time being, for decision and such decision shall be accepted as final and binding on both parties to this contract. The award may at the instance of either party and without any notice to the other of them be made a rule of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William.3. The Rules of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal ...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Howrah Municipality Vs. Golapi Bewa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.939
1. In this case one Golapi Bewa was accused, under Section 267 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, of erecting a hut without permission. On the case coming up for trial, the accused pleaded generally that she was not guilty. Evidence was given that the accused erected the huts. The Bench of Magistrates did not go into the question whether the accused has built the hut, or whether she had given notice to the Municipal Commissioners, but held that a notice to the accused under Section 267 is a condition precedent to a prosecution under that section, and that without such notice a conviction under that section, is bad. The District Magistrate relying on the decision in the unreported case, Legal Remembrancer v. Choita Raj Bhor Criminal Appeal No. 1507 of 1902 unreported has recommended that the acquittal of the accused be set aside. In our opinion this recommendation should be complied with, and the case sent back for determination whether the accused erected the huts, and, if so, whether ...
Tag this Judgment!AminuddIn Munshi and ors. Vs. Ulfutunnissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.315
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Brett.2. The short point for decision is 'whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. The plaintiffs are some of the heirs of an occupancy raiyat named Ramizeddi who died some time ago. The landlord sued the sons of Ramizeddi for rent and obtaining a decree proceeded to sell the holding which was purchased by the contesting defendant. The present plaintiffs who are the wife and daughter of Ramizeddi were not parties to that suit. The purchaser at the sale in execution of the landlord's decree dispossessed the plaintiffs, as they allege, and they now sue him to recover possession. The learned Judge of the Court below has held that the suit is not barred by limitation, inasmuch as the plaintiffs were dispossessed by the contesting defendant, the new tenant inducted by the landlord after the sale in execution, and not by the landlord himself. The learned pleader who appears on behalf of the defendants-appellants, urg...
Tag this Judgment!Mati Lal Pal Vs. Preo Nath Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.696
Robert Rampini, A.C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Woodroffe.2. The suit out of, which the appeal arises is one for the possession of certain land with wasilat. The facts as found by the lower Court are as follows :--'The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 contracted to sell their aforesaid share along with other properties to the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 8,501. They failed to execute a conveyance in favour of the plaintiff and he brought his suit (No. 2 of 1902) for a specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed upon a compromise which the parties entered into and the decree that was passed gave, in terms of the petition of compromise, three months time to the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to execute the conveyance. They failed to execute it, and the plaintiff executed his decree on 5th May 1903. On 14th Aghran 1310, (30th November 1903). the defendant No. 4 only executed out of Court a conveyance in plaintiff's favour for his one-third share. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Charan Sarkar and anr. Vs. Bengal Coal Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.354
1. In this case the Rule was issued calling upon the Deputy Commissioner and the Opposite Party to show cause why the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated the 20th June 1908, quashing proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, should riot be set aside and why an order should not be passed by this Court directing that the proceedings instituted do continue before the Deputy Magistrate, Babu Manmatha Nath Mukerjee, before whom they were originally instituted on the ground that the order of the Deputy Commissioner appears to have been passed without taking any evidence and, therefore, was passed without jurisdiction.2. The facts of the case out of which this Rule arose appear to be briefly as follows:3. The Eastern Coal Company, on the 3rd April, 1908, wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Manbhoom stating that they had obtained a prospecting coaling lease of Mouzah Hira Khund from one Tara Churn Sarkar on the 22nd February last and that they had commenced to prospe...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdhari Koer Vs. Ram Kanta Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.572
1. This is an appeal by the tenants of certain land who have been sued for rent by their landlords on the basis of a compromise effected in a suit some years ago. That suit was brought by one Banku and others, who asserted that they were the tenants of the land, and sued for recovery of possession, making the present appellants and the landlords defendants to the suit. The suit was settled by an arrangement of a nature which is not uncommon, that the present appellants who seem to be the real tenants of the land, should retain possession and should pay certain rent, namely Rs. 61. As the appellants now plead that the rent is Rs. 7-14, it is a fairly safe inference that the rent agreed upon by the compromise was to some extent an enhanced rent.2. The lower appellate Court has given effect to this compromise and the defendants appeal. The principal argument put forward in their favour is that the former suit related to the title of the land and was not concerned with the rent; and that, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Woozatunnessa Bibee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal21,1Ind.Cas.512
Woodroffe J.1. I will make an order in terms of the prayer of the petition, not under the Acts, which head the petition, but on the authority of Shama Churn Boy v. Abdul. Kabeer (1898) 3 C.W.N. 158, which lays down that this Court has jurisdiction under Mahomedan Law to authorise dealings with wakf property. A similar order was made by Mr. Justice Stephen on the 2nd July 1906.2. The petition shows that the present rent is Rs. 90-8, less taxes, and this has to be recovered from a number of small tenants. It is now proposed to let the property at a rental of Rs. 130 to one tenant for 30 years. This appears to me to be beneficial. I make the order and give liberty to the applicant to carry out the arrangement....
Tag this Judgment!Abbas Ali Shikdar Vs. Karim Bakhsh Shikdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.466
1. In this suit the plaintiffs sued for recovery of certain land, which formerly belonged to one Asu Sikdar, on the ground that Asu Sikdar had given one quarter of the property to his wife, the 4th plaintiff in lieu of dower, and the remaining three-quarters to the first three plaintiffs by a hiba bil ewaz in consideration of a copy of the Koran. The Counts below have decreed the suit and the defendants appeal.2. The first point taken is that the so-called hiba bil ewaz in favour of the first three plaintiffs is not a hiba bil ewaz at all, but a simple hiba or gift, and, therefore, was in effectual in the absence of any delivery of possession. We have, however, been shown no authority for holding that a copy of the Koran is not a valid consideration for a transfer of this nature and we think that the appellant's contention with reference to this document cannot be supported.3. The next point taken is that the verbal gift to the 4th plaintiff is invalid. It is argued that it is either a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »