Kolkata Court June 1909 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.
Narendra Nath Bairagi Vs. Dina Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal824,3Ind.Cas.996
Chitty and Carnduff, JJ.1. On 5th January 1907, the respondent, Dina Nath Das, obtained letters of administration to the estate and effects of one Ramani Debi, widow of Chintamani Bairagi. On 6th March 1907, the appellant Narendra Nath Bairagi applied to the District Judge of the 24-Parganas for revocation of the letters of administration on the ground that the said Ramani Debi was a prostitute, and that he was her adopted son and heir, and so entitled to administer her estate in preference to Dina Nath Das, who claimed to be her husband's brother's son. The appellant further objected that he should have, but had not been, cited at the time the letters of administration were granted to Dina Nath Das. The District Judge has rejected the appellant's application on several grounds. He found that appellant's alleged adoption had not been proved; that it was not proved that Ramani Debi was a prostitute; that, even if proved, the kind of adoption set up by the appellant would give him no rig...
Jagdeo Singh Vs. Bal Govind Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.653
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond by which the debtors agreed to repay the money by five instalments, the first of which was payable in Jaith 1297 (F.S.) and the last in Jaith 1301. Corresponding to June 1894. The bond contained a condition that if the debtors failed to pay any one instalment the creditor should have the power to realize the entire amount covered by the bond, principal with interest. It has been found as a fact that no instalments were paid and this suit was brought on the 4th June 1906. The question before us is whether this suit is barred by limitation. There can be no doubt that the suit falls within the description of cases under Article 132 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act, it being one to enforce payment of money charged upon immovable property. The question, therefore, before us is whether the period of limitation dates from the time of the first instalment or from the time when the last instalment became due. We have had cited t...
Dayanath Thakur Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal72
Caspersz and Ryves, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the prosecution of the petitioners should not be cancelled for the reasons stated in the petition.2. It appears that proceedings were instituted under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against one Mohari Lal Marwari at the instance of the petitioner, Dayanath Thakur. In the course of these proceedings the petitioner filed certain rent-receipts. The Magistrate trying the case passed, orders binding down Mohari Lal under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereupon, Mohari Lal applied to the District Magistrate to have the order set aside, The learned District Magistrate treats the matter as one coming under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and calls it a 'Criminal Motion.' After going into the merits of the application he came to the conclusion, apparently without hearing Dayanath Thakur, that the rent-receipts which he had filed were forged, and he concluded t...
Debendra Nath Shaha Vs. Bhagirath Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.27
1. This was a rule calling upon the District Magistrate and on the opposite party, the complainant Bhagirath Shaha, to show cause why the conviction and sentence of the petitioner should not be set aside on tile two grounds, first, that the complainant was not the person who was aggrieved, within the meaning of Section 198, Cr. P.C., and, secondly, that the statement made by the petitioner to his pleader, Baba Dwijendra Nath Roy, was Covered by Section 499, exception 9, Indian Penal Code.2. The opposite party has shown cause, and we have heard the learned Vakils on both sides, and our attention was drawn to the judgment of the Court below and to some portions of the evidence.3. It appears that the petitioner bad been accused in a former case, under Section 506, I.P.C., for criminal intimidation. His defence in that case was that it arose out of some unpleasantness or scandal which related to the alleged elopement of the daughter-in-law of complainant in this case. The charge of defamat...
Braja Mohan Mandal Vs. Thakur Das Nath and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.732
1. It has been decided in Nowbut Singh V. Chutterdharee Singh 19 W.R. 222 that special appeal does not lie because some portions of the evidence may be in writing and the Judge makes a mistake as to the meaning of it. The whole of the argument on this appeal has been that the Judge has made a mistake as to the meaning of a document. Even if that argument had firmer foundation than it has, still we should be compelled to hold on the authority of this decision that no appeal lies in this case. We think Mr. Justice Brett had no powers to vary the decree of the lower appellate Court we, therefore, reverse his judgment and confirm the decree of the lower, appellate Court with all costs of the High Court....
Daya Nath Thakur Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.555
1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the prosecution of the petitioners should not be cancelled for the reasons stated in the petition.2. It appears that proceedings were instituted under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against one Mohori Lal Marwari at the instigation of the petitioner, Daya Nath Thakur. In the course of these proceedings the petitioner filed certain rent-receipts. The Magistrate trying the case passed orders binding down Mohori Lal under Section 107, Criminal Procedure, Code Thereupon Mohori Lal applied to the District Magistrate to have the order set aside. The learned Assistant Magistrate treats the matter as one coming under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, and calls it a criminal motion. After going into the merits of the application, he came to the conclusion, apparently without hearing Daya Nath Thakur, that the rent-receipts which he had filed were forged, and he concluded these proceedings with the remark...
Jogendra Lal Chowdhury Vs. Atindra Lal Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.638
1. Jogendra Lal Chowdhury applied to the District Judge of Hooghly for probate of the will of his father Badan Chandra Chowdhuri dated 17th July 1901, of which he is named as the sole Executor. Badan Chandra Chowdhuri died on 18th August 1907. On 29th August 1908 the respondent Atindra Lal Chowdhuri a grandson of Badan Chandra Chowdhuri filed a caveat. He did not deny the factum of the will of 17th July 5901 which was duly registered, but pleaded that the execution of it by his grandfather was procured by the undue influence of the appellant. He claimed (that a former will of 3rd July 1899 (which was also registered) was the true last will of the testator. By the former will he would have received a share in the testator's estate. By the latter he was entirely disinherited. It is admitted that of the former will, as of the latter the appellant was appointed sole executor. On 23rd December 1908 Atindra Lal Chowdhury filed an application for the appointment of an administrator pendente l...
Lalji Sahai Singh and ors. Vs. Karki Jha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.654
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Mozaffarpore, dated the 12th April, 1907. It arises in the following way. There was a man of the name of Beni Prosad. He left a widow Rojha Koer. The present appellants are the heirs of Beni Prosad. At sometime after Beni Prosad's death Rojha Koer possessed herself of a certain piece of land. From this, however, she was ejected by a suit which was decreed against her. This decree was first upheld by the lower appellate Court and afterwards by this Court in 1897. In 1899 Rojha Koer died. In 1906 the decree-holders in that suit applied to have the original decree amended by the insertion of an order as to mesne profits about which there was no mention in the original decree. At the same time the present appellants were joined as defendants under Section 234 of the Code as the heirs of Beni Prosad.2. The question which we have now to consider is whether they are liable for mesne profits. The question...
Mahomed Tayab and ors. Vs. Hem Chandra Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.731
1. This case is covered by the authority of Prem Chand Pal v. Purnima Dasi (2) which has since been followed in this Court. We see no reason to express any dissent from these decisions and we, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs....
HosseIn Mahomed Vs. Fakir Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.740
1. The plaintiff has brought this suit to recover possession of certain land from defendant No. 1 on the theory that defendant No. 1 is a trespasser, and, by his plaint he seeks exclusive possession of the land. A decree was passed in his favour by the first Court but on appeal the lower appellate Court modified the decree of the first Court by disallowing khas possession of the land in question to the plaintiff in respect of 8 annas 5 pies share of it, and the decree for khas possession of the plaintiff jointly with defendant No. 1 in respect of the remaining 7 annas 7 pies share was affirmed. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with this decree for joint possession. He never sought it, and when it was given to him it did not answer the purpose for which the suit was brought, and so he appealed to this Court putting forward as the first ground of appeal that the orders of the Subordinate Judge directing the plaintiff to have khas possession of 7 annas 7 pies with defendant No. 1 being inco...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »