Kolkata Court August 1908 Judgments
Peary Mohan Maiti and ors. Vs. Sreenath Chandra Maiti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1908
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.735
Doss, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a registered mortgage bond. It was executed by five persons and signed by four attesting witnesses. One of the executants, viz., defendant No. 2 was also the scribe of the document. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 8 to 13, who are subsequent purchasers of the mortgaged properties. The other defendants, viz., defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who executed the mortgage bond and defendants Nos. 3 to 7 who are the representatives of the three remaining executants, did not appear.2. The contesting defendants, in their written statement, said that they did not know anything about the mortgage bond and further that they did not admit that the bond was executed in good faith or that consideration money was paid.3. The first issue raised was 'Is the mortgage bond in suit a bona fide transaction for valuable consideration.' The two other issues related to the title of the contesting defendants and to the question of interest. No issue was ra...
Tag this Judgment!Ganoda Sundary Chaudhurani Vs. Nalini Ranjan Raha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal28
Woodroffe, J.1. The plaintiff is the widow of Mohan Chandra Roy Chaudhury, zemindar of Atharbari, who was possessed of extensive zemindaries in Mymensingh. He died thirteen years ago in January 1895, leaving a will; of which he appointed the plaintiff executrix. The latter obtained probate on the 8th May 1895. Prior to his death he gave power to adopt and the plaintiff has adopted a son to him, Promode Charan Roy, now about 11 years old. The estate was at the testator's death and now is in debt and certain directions of the testator have not yet been carried out. The plaintiff says that she in May 1908 came to learn that the Court of Wards of Eastern Bengal intended to take possession of the estate. On the 3rd June 1908 that Court issued a notification assuming charge of the estate in suit, which was described to be the property of the minor.2. It is of this order that the plaintiff complains. She says that the estate is vested in her as executrix and it is not the property of the mino...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Autar Sahu Vs. Kishnuput Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.577a
1. The present rule is directed against two orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Palamau. The first hearing date, the 19th May 1908, runs as follows:It appears from the report of Baba Matukdhari Singh, the Deputy Collector, that you are having an embankment (bandh) erected in Bhojepur Tuppay Utary, in consequence of which Kishnuput Ram and others inhabitants of that place, may suffer great loss, you are, therefore, ordered that you do at once stop the erection of the embankment or appear before me on the 29th May 1908, and show cause. Treat this as peremptory.2. On the 29th May the second order was passed which was to the following effect:3. I have directed the petitioner to stop work this year. At the beginning of next cold weather I will visit the place. Copy to Police for information.4. The rule was issued calling upon the Deputy Commissioner to show cause why his order, dated the 29th May 1908, should not be set aside on the ground that it is not clear from the proceedings a...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Wasil Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.578
1. The present rule is directed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code for having furnished false information in a Road-cess return which he submitted to the Collector under Section 14 of the Road Cess and Public Works Cess Act (IX, B.C. of 1880).2. Nobody appears to oppose this rule and after reading the explanation which has been submitted by the Magistrate, we are of opinion that the rule must be made absolute.3. The learned Magistrate has held that the object of the petitioner in furnishing the false information in the return was to support a civil suit. The Magistrate has, however, failed to realise that under Section 95 of the Act such a return is admissible in evidence against the person making it, but is not admissible in evidence in his favour. The object, therefore, for which the Magistrate finds that the false information was given in the return appears to us to fail. No doubt, Section 94 of the Act provides fo...
Tag this Judgment!Ganoda Sundary Chaudhurani Vs. Nalini Ranjan Raha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.514
Woodroffe, J.1. The plaintiff is the widow of Mohun Chandra Roy Chaudhury Zamindar of Atharbari, who was possessed of extensive zamindaries in Mymensingh. He died thirteen years ago in January 1805, leaving a Will, of which he appointed the plaintiff executrix. The latter obtained probate on the 8th May 1895. Prior to his death he gave power to adopt and the plaintiff has adopted a son to him, Promode Charan Roy, now about 11 years old. The estate was at the testator's death and now is in debt and certain directions of the testator have not yet been carried out. The plaintiff says that she in May 1908 came to learn that the Court of Wards of Eastern Bengal intended to take possession of the estate. On the 3rd June 1908, that Court issued a notification assuming charge of the estate in suit, which was described to be the property of the minor.2. It is of this order that the plaintiff complains. She says that the estate is vested in her as executrix and it is not the property of the mino...
Tag this Judgment!Sheomall Goenka Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.415a
1. We have heard the learned Counsel in support of this rule and the learned Vakil who has appeared on behalf of the Municipality to oppose it; and in our opinion the rule must be discharged.2. The learned Vakil points out that the rule has been obtained with reference to two separate orders,--one, an order passed under Section 574 fining the petitioner Rs. 50 on the 1st June 1908, for failure to comply with an order under Section 451 of the Municipal Act, and the other under Section 449 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, directing demolition of the fourth storey of the building.3. In support of the rule it has been argued that the Municipal Magistrate is wrong in the view which he has taken that the building belonging to the petitioner consisted of two holdings and not of one holding and that if the Magistrate had accepted the view that the two holdings were one, then the construction of the fourth story could not be an infringement of the rules passed under the Act, because the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Nath Dandput Vs. Hari Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal141
R.F. Rampini, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376, has held that the Article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the Article applicable is not Article 36, but some other Article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer (1898) I.L.R. 25 Calc. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I consider that the Article of the Schedule to th...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.333
1. In this case a Rule was issued on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner for an offence under Section 19, Clause (f) of the Arms Act, should not be set aside.2. It appears from the facts of the case as set out in the trial record that the petitioner was found with a gun in the village of Kharari at 6 o'clock one morning and that a Head Constable whose attention had been drawn by hearing of the gun fire went to the village. At the time of the Head Constable's arrival the accused was found re-loading the gun and there were some powder and shot and caps in paper parcels alongside of him.3. The defence set up was that the gun belonged to the master of the accused and that the master of the accused was at the time in the village in which the accused was firing the gun. The lower Court, however, found on the evidence that the master of the accused was not in that village at all but was in a different village and that the accused wa...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Nath, Dundput, Sripati Sarkar and ors. Vs. Hari Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.788
Robert Rampini, Acting C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises cut of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376; (Sub-nomine Hari Charan Fadikar v. Hari Kar) 32 C. 459, has held that the article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the article applicable is not Article 36, but some ether article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer 25 C. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I...
Tag this Judgment!Abhoy Churn Ghose Vs. Attarmoni Dassee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.415
1. This suit is brought for the possession of premises No. 6, Mussalmanpara. Lane, to which the plaintiff claims to be entitled as nephew and heir to Nobin Chunder Ghose, on the death of his widow Sreemutty Bimola Dassee. She sold the house on the 29th October 1857 to Mutty Lal Mullick from whose hands it has passed into those of the defendant, one of the transfers by which this was brought about having been a Sheriff's sale in execution of a money-decree on 19th August 1880, at which the plaintiff gave all bidders notice of his right to the property on the death of the widow.2. To this, the defendant pleaded in his original written statement that he was in possession and he called on the plaintiff to prove his title, adding a claim to compensation for improvements that he had made to the premises, if it was found that the plaintiff is entitled to them. He subsequently filed a supplementary written statement in which he stated that the plaintiff was an attesting witness to the kabala o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »