Kolkata Court May 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.
Debi Prasanna Rai Chowdury and ors. Vs. Harendra Nath Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.534
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 Anna Purna Dasi, the widow of their deceased elder brother. It appears that, upon the death of Anna Purna, 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 pets of objectors could ...
Mofiz Sheikh Vs. Rasik Lal Ghbosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.796
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 inapplicable and consequently the tena...
Sheodhani Pandey and ors. Vs. Maharani Beni Pershad Koeri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1910
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.935
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to impugn that which was the subject-matter and the result of proceedings taken under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is urged on the part of the plaintiff that there was no such Record of Rights as entitled the Settlement Officer to make the settlement of rent which he professed to make; and, secondly, that the Settlement Officer had no authority to make any addition to the rent by reason of his holding that there was excess land. Both those points have been determined adversely to the plaintiff in both the lower, Courts and also by Mr. Justice Carnduff before whom this case came on appeal in the first instance. In our opinion, however, the suit should have been dismissed under Section J09 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, because this is a suit which concerns a matter which has been the subject of an application made and proceedings taken under Section 105 of that Act. A suit of such a character cannot be entertained by the Civil Court u...
NabIn Chandra Shaha Vs. Kula Chandra Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal742
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit brought for enhancement of rent under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It was dismissed by the Munsif, and that decree of dismissal was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. On appeal to this Court Mr. Justice Caspersz expressed his agreement with the lower Appellate Court. It is from this judgment of Mr. Justice Caspersz that the present appeal is preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The grounds on which the plaintiffs based their claim for enhancement were, first, that the rate of rent paid by the defendants was below the prevailing rate paid by occupancy raiyats for land of a similar description and with similar advantages in the same village or in neighbouring villages, and that there was no sufficient reason for their holding at so low a rate; and, secondly, that there has been a rise in the average local prices of staple food-crops during the currency of the existing rent. Both these grounds, in the opinion of the l...
Prahlad Chandra Das Vs. Dwarka Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal860
Brett and Richardson, JJ.1. The main point which has been taken in support of this appeal is that the lower Appellate Court erred in law in holding that a suit to set aside an adoption was entertain able by the Munsif's Court. It appears that the suit was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 1,235, and that the Munsif in whose Court it was instituted exercised jurisdiction in all suits not exceeding Rs. 2,000 in value. In support of the appellant's contention, the decision of this Court in the case of Aklemannessa Bibee v. Mahomed Hatem (1904) I.L.R. 31 Calc. 849 has been relied on. This Court has, however, in the later case of Jan Mahomed Mandal v. Mashar Bibi (1907) I.L.R. 34, pointed out that the decision in the case of Aklemannessa Bibi v. Mahomed Hatem (1904) I.L.R. 31 Calc. 849 as to the jurisdiction of the Munsif to entertain a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, is an obiter dictum. We have studied carefully the judgments of this Court in these two cases, and we are of opinion t...
Matabbar Shekh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.257
1. No one appears to show cause against this rule. We called on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the present petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the facts found do not disclose any criminal offence.2. What appears to have happened is this-The petitioner was in the employ of the Steam Navigation Company and it was his business to see the ticket of the complainant. The complainant had not got the ticket and, therefore, ' the petitioner took possession of his umbrella as security that he (complainant) might be compelled to pay his fare.3. Under those circumstances, we do not think that he ought to have been convicted of theft. The case is distinguishable from that cited in the explanation of the Magistrate [Queen-Empress v. Srichurn Chungo 22 C. 1017], because that was where a man was taking possession of the property for himself. In this case, the utmost that can be said is this that the zeal of the petitioner in discharg...
NabIn Chandra Saha and ors. Vs. Kula Chandra Dhur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.506
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit brought for enhancement of rent under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It was dismissed by the Munsif, and that decree of dismissal was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, and on appeal to this Court Mr. Justice Caspersz expressed his agreement-with the lower appellate Court. It is from this judgment of Mr. Justice-Caspersz that the present appeal is preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The grounds on which the plaintiffs based their claim for enhancement were, first, that the rate of rent paid by the defendants was below the prevailing rate paid by occupancy ryots for land of a similar description and with similar advantages in the same village or in neighbouring villages, and that there was no sufficient reason for their holding at so low rate; and, secondly, that there has been a rise in the average local prices of staple food crops during the currency of -the existing rent. Both these grounds, in the opinion of the low...
Harish Chunder Biswas Vs. Puri Das Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.627
1. The defendant No. 1 in the present case brought a suit against one Ichhamoyee Baishnabi and two other persons in 1904 to recover some money said to have been due from them in a hatchita. It appears that these two other persons, who in that suit were the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, were the nephews of Ichhamoyee. Ichhamoyee was a prostitute. During the course of the trial, Ichhamoyee died and the question arose as to who was to be substituted as defendant in the suit as her representative. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in that suit claimed to be the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, and the plaintiff in the present suit, who was apparently the paramour of Ichhamoyee, came forward and produced a Will which he said was the Will of Ichhamoyee and claimed to be entitled to represent Ichhamoyee in that suit, on the ground that he was the executor and sole legatee under the Will. He had not then taken out probate of the Will and the Court trying the case held that the defendants ...
Prolhad Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Dwarka Nath Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.636
1. The main point, which has been taken in support of this appeal, is that the lower appellate Court erred in law in holding that a suit to set aside an adoption was entertainable by the Munsif's Court. It appears that the suit was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 1,235 and that the Munsif in whose Court it was instituted exercised jurisdiction in all suits not exceeding Its. 2,000 in value. In support of the appellants' contention, the decision of this Court in the case of, Aklemannessa Bibi v. Mahomed Hatem 31 C. 849 : 8 C.W.N. 705, has been relied on. This Court has, however, in the later case of Jan Mahomed Mandal v. Mashar Bibi 34 C. 352 : 5 C.L.J. 400 : 11 C.W.N. 458, pointed out that the decision in the case of Aklemannessa Bibi v. Mahomed Hatem 31 C. 849 : 8 C.W.N. 705, as to the jurisdiction of the Munsif to entertain a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, is an obiter dictum. We have studied carefully the judgments of this Court in these two cases and we are of opinion that...
Promotha Nath Bose Vs. Basanta Kumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.777
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not he set aside on the ground that the Jury who decided the question was not a Jury legally constituted under the provisions of Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also on the ground that there was no jurisdiction to make the order.2. The facts of the case are very simple. On the 16th September 1909, a notice was issued under Section 133 on the petitioner to remove or to show cause on October 2nd why he should not remove the obstruction complained of. On October 2nd, the petitioner filed a petition in which he denied that the place encroached upon was a public road. He said that it was a private land purchased by the petitioner's son and that he had no interest in the land and lastly added a prayer that a jury might be appointed under Section 138 of the Code to try whether the Magistrate's order was a proper one. The Magistrate considered the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »