Kolkata Court May 1910 Judgments
Sakina Bibee Vs. Mahomed Ishak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal839
Pugh, J.1. I think this will must be admitted in evidence. It is admitted by those who object to its admission that the document qua document is duly proved and would have to be admitted, but it is contended that as it is a will it cannot be given in evidence until it has been proved in the Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, and that the probate of the will, when proved, is the only evidence by which it can be brought before the notice of the Court. Now the point turns on the construction of the Probate and Administration Act (V of 1881). That Act provides for the consequences and results that will happen if probate is taken of the will of a Mahomedan, and it seems clear that under such circumstances, by force of Section 4 of the Act, all the property of the testator vests in the executor.2. As I have said, there is no provision rendering it obligatory in the case of a Mahomedan will to take probate. It is contended by Mr. Bose that, looking at the whole policy of the Act, it wou...
Tag this Judgment!Rateswar Singh Vs. Gulab Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.582
1. In this case the decree-holder obtained a decree for money against one Sureshwar Rai Singh, who was one of four brothers living jointly with his father Sureshwar Singh as a joint family governed by the Mitakshara Law. Sureshwar died during the life-time of his father leaving his sons, the appellants before us, and they succeeded by right of survivorship to the interest of their deceased father in the family properties. It does not appear that there was any execution taken out in the life-time of Sureshwar: after his death, however, the decree-holder applied for executing his decree against the appellants as the legal representatives of Sureshwar. They objected on the ground that the decree, not having been executed against their father could not be executed against them as they did not inherit anything from their father and had, therefore, no assets in their hands available to the decree-holder for the satisfaction of his decree. They further contended that the decree-holder should ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Charan Sen Vs. Sris Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.584
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the auction-purchaser against an order of the Court below by which an, execution-sale held on the 9th November 1906 has been set aside. The application by which the sale was impeached was presented in the Court of first instance on the 13th January 1908, and was based on the ground that the attachment had not been properly effected and the sale proclamation had not been served. These grounds failed and the application was dismissed. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has held that as notice under Section 248 of the Code of 1882 was not served, the sale is an irregular sale and is liable to be set aside. He has further found upon the evidence that the property which was of considerable value was sold for Rs. 32. Under these circumstances, he has reversed the sale.2. The propriety of this order has been questioned before us on behalf of the auction-purchaser on the ground that as the sale was hot attacked on the ground of omission to serve a notice on th...
Tag this Judgment!Nibaran Chandra Banerjee Vs. S.C. Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.637
1. The only question which arises in this second appeal is whether in an order under Section 57 of the former Code, returning the plaint to be filed in the proper Court, the Court returning the plaint has any discretion to grant a reasonable time for the purpose. It has been argued before us that under the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the only time that can be excluded is the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another Civil proceeding against the defendant in good faith in a Court which for defect of jurisdiction is unable to maintain it, and that, therefore, what really happened was that when the plaint was returned on the 10th of July 1907 at 4-50 p.m., the plaintiff no longer had any time in which to file the plaint in the proper Court, inasmuch as he had filed the plaint in a wrong Court, on the 12th April 1907 which was the last date for limitation. It is urged that the special provision made with regard to Section 20, Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi Narayan Mahto Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal833
Harington and Teunon, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Municipal Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the Municipality, having assessed rates on the new building, and having received them from the petitioner, have assented to his disobedience to the order.2. The conviction which was passed upon the petitioner was for disobedience to an order made under Section 449 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, directing him to demolish a certain building. The order to demolish the building was made as long ago as the 25th September 1905, and it appears, on the materials before us, that since that order was made the petitioner has been endeavouring to induce the Corporation not to insist on obedience to the order, but to come to terms with him, and on certain considerations to allow him to disregard the order.3. He was convicted of disobedience to the order in 1905, and he was also convicted again subsequentl...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi NaraIn Mahto Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.800
1. This is a Rule calling upon the Municipal Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and. sentence passed upon the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the Municipality, having assessed rates on the new building and having received them from the petitioner, have assented to his disobedience to the order.2. The conviction which was passed upon the petitioner was for disobedience to an order made under Section 449 of the Calcutta Municipal Act directing him to demolish a certain building. The order to demolish the building was made as long ago 25th September 1905 and it appears, on the materials before us, that, since that order was made, the petitioner has been endeavouring to induce the corporation not to insist on obedience to the order but to come to terms with him and, on certain considerations, to allow him to disregard the order.3. He was convicted of disobedience to the order in 1905 and he was also convicted again subsequently. The position now is that negot...
Tag this Judgment!Niladri Mahanti and ors. Vs. Bichitranand Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.605
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain land which they claim to be their under-tenure. The Munsif passed a decree in the plaintiffs' favour. This was reversed by the lower appellate Court, and, on appeal to this Court, Mr. Justice Brett has confirmed the decree of the lower appellate Court. The present appeal is from Mr. Justice Brett's judgment under Section 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The facts, which have given rise to this suit, can be briefly stated. The plaintiffs on the 14th October 1901, purchased the land in suit from defendant No. 9, who himself purchased the under-tenure of which this land forms part on the 15th December 1900 at a sale held in execution of a money-decree passed-against defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant No. 2. On the 28th of January 1902, the under-tenure was again put up to sale in execution of a decree against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 obtained by defendants Nos. 4 to 8 who were sharers in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Niladri Mahanti Vs. Bichitranand Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal823
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain land which they claim to be their under-tenure. The Munsif passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. This was reversed by the lower Appellate Court; and, on appeal to this Court, Mr. Justice Brett has confirmed the decree of the lower Appellate Court. The present appeal is from Mr. Justice Brett's judgment under Section 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The facts which have given rise to this suit can be briefly stated. The plaintiffs, on the 14th October 1901, purchased the land in suit from defendant No. 9, who himself purchased the under-tenure, of which this land forms part, on the 15th of December 1900 at a sale held in execution of a money-decree passed against defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant No. 2. On the 28th of January 1902, the under-tenure was again put up to sale in execution of a decree against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 obtained by defendants Nos. 4 ...
Tag this Judgment!Mofiz Sheikh Vs. Rasik Lal Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal815
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The substantial question of law which calls for decision in this rule, relates to the right of a tenant of homestead land to cut and appropriate fruit-trees grown by him or his predecessors-in-interest on the holding, when it is established that the tenancy was created before the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, came into operation. The plaintiffs, opposite party, commenced this action for recovery of damages on the allegation that the defendant petitioner had cut and appropriated one jack tree which stood on his holding. The defendant resisted the claim, inter alia, on the ground that the tree had been planted by his grandfather after the commencement of the tenancy, and that he was consequently entitled to cut and appropriate it. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes did not come to any finding upon this point, but decreed the suit on the ground that, as the defendant was not a cultivator, Section 23 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, was inapplica...
Tag this Judgment!Debiprasanna Roy Chowdhry Vs. Harendra Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal863
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. We are invited in this appeal to set aside an order by which the Court below has overruled an objection taken by the appellants to the grant of probate of a will alleged to have been executed by one Annapurna Dasi, the widow of their deceased elder brother. It appears that upon the death of Annapurna, an application for the probate of her will was made by the respondents, who are the sons of her uterine sister. In the application the nearest relations of the deceased were stated to be the younger brothers of her husband and the sons of her step-mother. Notices were duly served upon these persons, and they entered caveats. When the case came on for trial, the learned District Judge held that both sets of objectors could not be allowed to contest the validity of the will, inasmuch as if either set was held to be entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased in the event of an intestacy, it must be to the exclusion of the other set; consequently, both set...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »