Kolkata Court November 1909 Judgments
Sheikh Nasur Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal122
Harington and Chatterjee, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence mentioned in the petition should not be set aside or such other order passed, as the circumstances may require, on the ground that the resistance was after the date specified in the first process, and on the further ground that the resistance, if any, in respect of the second process, was not to the person named therein as charged with the execution of the process.2. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. They appealed to the District Magistrate, and the sentence passed on them was reduced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. They now ask that the conviction may be set aside on the grounds upon which the Rule was granted.3. Now, the resistance was made to the execution of two different warrants, one under the Public Demands Recovery Act and the other under the Chaukidari Act. With respect to the former warrant, the g...
Tag this Judgment!Khitish Chandra Sanyal Vs. Hari Charan Dass and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.398
1. On both the contentions raised in this second appeal, we think the learned District Judge has fallen into manifest error. He has directed the decree-holder appellant to proceed against the whole of the mortgaged property, in one and the same application, and he has exonerated the defendant No. 2 from liability under the mortgage-decree.2. Section 89 of, the Transfer of Property Act provides that 'the Court shall pass an order that the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof be sold.' The decree-holder by applying for the sale of a part of the mortgaged premises undergoes a certain amount of risk, but in the absence of any evidence that his mortgage dues would not be realised by the sale of a part only of the property, we think the order directing him to proceed against the whole cannot be justified. A question may arise in this connection when a decree is applied for under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, if that procedure is eventually followed by the decree-hold...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Naseer and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.409
1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence mentioned in the petition should not be set aside or such other order passed, as the circumstances may require, on the ground, that the resistance was after the date specified in the first process, and on the further ground that the resistance, if any, in respect of the second process was not to the person named therein as charged with the execution of the process.2. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 186, Indian Penal Code. They appealed to the District Magistrate and the sentence-passed on them was reduced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. They now seek that the conviction may be set aside on the grounds upon which the rule was granted.3. Now, the resistance was made to the execution of two different warrants--one under the Public Demands Recovery Act and the other under the Chowkidari Act. With respect to the former the ground taken by the petitioners is that where...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendrabala Debi Vs. Kashipati Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal224,5Ind.Cas.1003
Fletcher, J.1. In this case a preliminary point has been taken as to whether the High Court has jurisdiction under the provisions of the Probate and Administration Act to grant probate, unless a portion of the assets are situate within the limits of the Original Jurisdiction of this Court.2. The sections of the Probate and Administration Act that are material are, first, Section 2, which provides that 'no Court in any local area beyond the limits of the town of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, etc., and no 'High Court, in exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction over such local area hereby conferred, shall receive applications for probate or letters of administration until the Local Government has, with the previous sanction of the Governor-General in Council, by a Notification in the Official Gazette, authorized it so to do'. The notification referred to has been published in the Calcutta Gazette in 1881, by which this Court (that is the High Court of Calcutta) has jurisdiction to receive ...
Tag this Judgment!Barada Kinkar Chowdhury and anr. Vs. NabIn Chandra Datta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.408
1. The question for determination in this second appeal is whether the application, dated the 27th March, 1908, for the execution of the decree, bearing date the 30th June, 1903, is barred by the Rule of three years prescribed by Article 179 (4) of the second Schedule of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877.2. The lower Courts have differed as to the construction of the Article, and the arguments before us have been directed to a variety of reported cases some only of which we think it necessary to mention. 3. The facts are that the decree was one for possession of land against one set of defendants, for possession through tenants against another set, and for costs, and mesne profits, against all the defendants.4. The decree-holder proceeded to recover costs against some of the defendants on the 18th August, 1905, but he did not at that time proceed against the defendants Nos 2. and 11 who are the appellants in this Court.5. The Munsif thought that, inasmuch as the decree-holder had executed...
Tag this Judgment!Prokash Chandra Sarakar and ors. Vs. Raja Bisumbhar Nath Sahi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.18
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, dated the 14th January, 1908, setting aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Palamau, which directed the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit after the 'plaintiff had failed to put in certain additional fees for the institution of that suit. It appears that the plaintiff brought a suit valuing the relief claimed at Rs. 2,100. An objection was taken to the valuation by, the defendants who alleged that the proper value was Rs. 50,000. On the 27th July an issue was raised before the Subordinate Judge, namely, has the suit been under-valued arid is the Court-fee paid insufficient.' The Subordinate Judge went into question and, in Sliding the issue, came to the conclusion that the market value of the Subject-matter of the suit was least Rs. 24,000, and directed that institution fees on that Value should be paid in by the 29th July 1907. The order was not complied with and, oh the 29th July 1907, the suit wa...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingh Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. Kali Charan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.147
1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the lower Court was right in the view which it took that the application made on the 12th August 1904 was an application to the proper Court to take some steps-in-aid of execution of the decree. The application was to the effect that the Court would allow the applicant a week's time to adduce evidence to prove that the notice under Section 248, Civil Procedure Code, had been duly served. That-application was dismissed and the question is whether that application was an application in aid of execution. The learned pleader for the appellant admits that the execution. could not proceed without proof of due service of the notice and it has been held by this Court that an application to the Court to do an act in aid of execution, even though it is refused, is an application within the meaning of the article of the Limitation Act for the purpose of saving limitation. In this case, we are of opinion that the Object of the applicant' was to...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Singh Vs. Kalidasi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal57
Holmwood and Chatterjee, JJ.1. The defendant No. 1 is the zemindar of a certain mouza called Kaytha now in the district of Birbhum. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the patnidars and plaintiff is the dar-patnidar of the said mouza. Subsequently to the creation of these tenures the Government resumed the chowkidari chakran lands of the mouza under Bengal Act VI of 1870, and made a transfer of the same to defendant No. 1 under Section 50 of the said Act on several dates in 1898, 1899 and 1900 at a total jama of 215 rupees, and defendant No. 1 made raiyati settlements of the said lands with defendants Nos. 4 to 18 who are in possession. The plaintiff brings this suit on the allegation that the defendant No. 1 having transferred all his rights in respect of the mouza to the patnidars, and the patnidars having similarly transferred all their rights to the dar-patnidar, subject of course to the payment of the respective head rents, she as dar-patnidar was entitled to khas possession of the said l...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingh Das Vs. Rafikan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal197
Holmwood and Chatterjee, JJ.1. The plaintiff brought the suit giving rise to the present appeal on the allegation that her father had made a gift of the disputed property to her in 1859: that she gave a lease of the property to her father and mother, that on her father's death her brother and mother held possession under the lease until the death of her brother in 1898, when, on going to assume khas possession, she found herself obstructed by the defendants who claimed under alienations from her brother.2. It appears that in 1879 her brother, Najimuddin, got his own name registered as proprietor under an alleged verbal gift from her, and thenceforward continued dealing with, the property as his own. In 1886 he mortgaged the disputed property to defendants Nos. 3 and 4. In 1888 he sold the same to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In 1895 defendants Nos. 3 and 4 brought a suit on the mortgage and therein impleaded the plaintiff No. 1 as well as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Najimuddin as parties d...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Ranjit Sinha Bahadur Vs. Kalidasi Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.205
1. The defendant No. 1 is the zsminiar of a certain mous'ih called Kaytlia now in the district of Birbhum. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the pitnidars and plaintiff is the durpatnidar of the said mouzah. Subsequently to the creation of these tenures, the Government resumed the chowkidari chakran lands of the mouzah under Act VI of 1870 B.C. and made a transfer of the same to defendant No. 1 under Section 50 of the said Act on several dates in 1898, 1899 and 1900 at a total jama of Rs. 215 and defendant No. 1 made raiyati settlement of the said'lands with defendants Nos. 4--18, who are in possession. The plaintiff brings this suit on the allegation that the defendant No. 1 having transferred all his rights in respect of the mouzah to the patnidars and the patnidars having similarly transferred all their rights to the dur-patrtnlars, subject of curse to the payment of the respective head rents, she as dur-patnidar was entitled to khas possession of the said lands at the juma payable to the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »