Kolkata Court March 1910 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.
Maharaj Mandal Vs. Pokar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal543
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. The petitioners in this case have been convicted of an offence under Section 28 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885. We have granted a rule on the Magistrate of the Purneah District to show cause why the conviction and the sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the limits of the public ferry have not been declared under Section 6 of the Act. It appears that this is the fact of the case. There is nothing to show that the Karagola ferry has ever been declared to be a public ferry under Section 6, or, at least, the declaration itself has not been produced. The Judge tells us that the Karagola ferry certainly is a public ferry and has existed for over 35 years, and, from what is said in the explanation, we gather that the point was not raised at the trial. At the same time the Karagola ferry has apparently not been declared under Section 6, and, therefore, the limits within which the rights connected with it exist, have not be...
Nilmani Ghatak Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal671,7Ind.Cas.931
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted of an offence under a bye-law made under Section 140 of the Bengal Local Self-government Act, 1885. He has been fined in respect of a continuing offence. The bye-law on which the proceedings are based, is that, 'no person shall damage or encroach on any part of a road, its slopes or side-ditches by,' among other things, 'placing a fence thereon.'2. We have granted a rule to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the land alleged to have been encroached on is not such a road or roadside land or slope as is contemplated by the Act and the bye-laws framed thereunder.3. The question of fact, which the Court below has decided, is whether the fence, which has admittedly been constructed, stands on the slope of the Rajmehal road. Reviewing a considerable body of evidence with apparently considerable discretion, the Court has found that the present fencing stands on th...
Prohlad Patni Vs. Shashadhar Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.553
1. Each case of this class must be determined according to its own peculiar circumstances, and I feel no doubt that what is claimed here is a sum payable under a contractual relationship and referable to that relationship, and it is in no sense rent that is claimed. It follows from this that the exclusion under art. 8 of the second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has no application, and the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The rule must, therefore, be discharged with costs-hearing fee, two gold mohurs....
Bibi Tasliman and ors. Vs. Bibi Kasiman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.44
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for partition' brought by two Mahomedan ladies, daughters of one Amir-ud-din The defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are the four sons of Amir-ud-din. The widow is defendant No. 1, and the son of defendant No. 2 who is defendant No. 6, and the wife of defendant No. 2 who is defendant No. 7 claim certain portions of the properties as their own.2. The defendants objected to the partition on the ground that the properties left by Amir-ud-din were by family arrangement in the possession of defendant No. 1, his widow, in lieu of her dower and that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the properties in dispute. They contended, inter alia, that three of the properties belonged to the defendants Nos. 6 and 7. The learned Subordinate Judge found that two of the properties claimed by defendants Nos. 6 and 7 were really the properties of Amir-ud-din. The third, evidenced by the kobala (Exhibit C), he found, was not the property of Amir-ud-din and that the p...
Sri Sri Iswar Lakshmi Janardan Jiew and ors. by their Shebaits Lalit M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.119
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action commenced by them under Section 539 of the Code of 1832, against the trustees of a public religious and charitable trust, and, a transferee of trust property from them. The Court below has dismissed the suit on two grounds, first, that it is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action; and secondly, that the second plaintiff has no cause of action and as under Section 539 of the Code there must be at least two plaintiffs, the first plaintiff can obtain no relief. The learned Vakil for the appellants has asked for leave to withdraw the suit as against the transferee defendant Eradatullah with liberty to bring a fresh suit as against him in view of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Budh Singh Dhudhuria v. Nirad Baran Roy 2 C.L.J. 431 and Budree Das. Mookim v. Chooney Lal Johury 33 C. 789 : 10 C.W.N. 581. As one of the appellants is an infant, the question arises whether such leave ought to be granted. We are o...
Maharaj Mandal and anr. Vs. Pokak Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.198
1. The petitioners in this case have been convicted of an offence under Section 28 of the Bengal Ferries Act. We have granted a Rule on the Magistrate of the District to show cause why the conviction and the sentence passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the limits of the ferry have not been declared under Section 6 of the Act. It appears that this is the fact of the case. There is nothing to show that the ferry has ever been declared to be a ferry under Section 6, or at least the declaration itself has not been produced. The Judge tells us that the ferry certainly is a public ferry and has existed over 35 years, and from what he says in the explanation we gather, that the point was not raised at the trial. At the same time the new Jerry is not declared under Section 6. The limits within which the rights of the owners of the ferry exist have not been and cannot be ascertained.2. Under these circumstances, we consider that the conviction cannot stand. We a...
Kade Mandal Vs. Ahadali Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.594
1. In these cases, we do not think that the relation of landlord and tenant is made out and we, therefore, must decline to interfere. The decree will accordingly stand. The rules are discharged with costs; hearing fee, one gold mohur in. each case....
Dipa Koer and anr. Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.6
1. This is a petition for probate of the Will of one Lala Kondhey Lal, who died on the 8th April 1907. The petitioners are the maternal aunts of the deceased. The application has been rejected by the learned District Judge of Saran, on the ground that at the date of the alleged Will, that is the 5th April 1907, Lala Kondhey Lal had not attained majority and was, therefore, under Section 46 of the Succession Act, as extended by Section 2 of the Hindu Wills Act to Hindus, incapable of making' a Will.2. The learned Vakil for the petitioner, appellant, has placed before us some cases. Most of them are of dates antecedent to the amendment; of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, by Section 52 of the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890. Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, as it now stands, says that 'every minor of whose person or property or both a guardian other than a guardian for a suit has been or shall be appointed or declared by any Court of Justice, before the minor has attained the age of e...
Ela Buksh Mundal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.124
1. In this case certain persons have been bound down under Section 118, Criminal Procedure Code. Sureties have been offered on their behalf and have been rejected by the Magistrate on the grounds that, as they are receivers of stolen property, it would, be dangerous to accept them as sureties, and that they are connected with gangs of dacoits. Other somewhat similar reasons are alleged. As far as the recorded reasons show they are derived wholly from a Police report. The Magistrate in his explanation says that he relies on another source of information, namely, an enquiry instituted by himself in which he heard various matters which show that these persons are generally speaking bad characters. The Magistrate, in rejecting sureties under Section 122, Criminal Procedure Code, has to record his reasons for doing so. From this, it seems to follow that the reasons must have been carefully considered and tested which is best done by their being brought to the notice of the persons who are r...
Ramratan Kapali Vs. Aswini Kumar Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal559
Mookerjee and Teunon, JJ.1. The substantial question of law which calls for decision in these appeals relates to the assessment of mesne profits of property sold for arrears of 'revenue, and is of a somewhat novel character. The circumstances under which the claim for mesne profits is made by the decree-holders are not the subject of controversy between the parties. On the 25th of September 1894, the respondents purchased an estate at a sale for arrears of revenue. They at first commenced an action for recovery of possession of some of the lands comprised in the estate, on the allegation that the intermediate tenure set up by the persons in possession was not binding upon them as purchasers at a sale for arrears of revenue. This suit was decreed on the 2nd March 1900, and on appeal to this Court, the decree of the Court of first instance was affirmed on the 24th March 1905. On the 12th April 1905 the purchasers commenced the present action for recovery of possession of lands not compri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »