Kolkata Court December 1917 Judgments
Gour Moni Dassi and ors. Vs. Borada Kanta Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.657
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Judge of the 24-Pergannas, by which he has declined in certain Probate proceedings to make an order upon the Administrator pendente lite to advance to the widow of the deceased (who was contesting the Will that has been propounded partly on her own behalf and partly on behalf of her two minor sons) sums reasonably sufficient for their maintenance and also sufficient to enable the widow to contest the Will and put her defence adequately before the Court. The learned District Judge appears to be of opinion that there is nothing in the law which enables him to make such an order. But here it appears to us that he has fallen into error. The position of an Administrator pendente lite in a Probate proceeding is closely analogous to that of a Receiver appointed for instance in a partition suit, and Section 34 of the Probate and Administration Act gives ample power to the Court to direct the Administrator pendente lite to do such acts a...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Sajuddi Mandal and ors. Vs. F.L. Cork and E.N. Forbes and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.41
Charles Chitty, J.1. This is a Rule granted to the petitioners, who may be called the Mandals, calling on the District Magistrate of Burdwan and the opposite party, i.e., the Equitable Coal Company, to show cause why, on the grounds set out in the petition, the order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, passed by the Magistrate should not be set aside. The matter came before Mr. Justice Teunon and Mr. Justice Richardson, and the learned Judges having differed in opinion the case has been laid before me for my opinion. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments of both the learned Judges and yesterday heard arguments in the matter. It will be enough for me to say that I agree with Mr. Justice Richardson in the conclusion to which he has come, namely, that the Rule should be discharged, for the reasons which he has given. It appears to me that in this case there was no such material irregularity on the part of the Magistrate in the exercise of the jurisdiction, which he und...
Tag this Judgment!Golam HussaIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1917
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.343
1. On the findings of fact by the Appellate Court it seems clear that-there was no trust which would bring the case under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. Payment was made to the petitioners of a debt, directly that sum was paid the debt was paid off, and the money so paid they were entitled to retain What they failed to do was to carry out the condition on which the money was paid, namely, to re-turn the bond, The learned, Magistrate in, his explanation suggests that the matter might constitute an offence under Section 403, Indian Penal Code, but there, again, he is met with the objection that there was no dishonest misappropriation of this money or wrongful conversion to the use of the petitioners The money was paid in satisfaction or part satisfaction of a debt. Their offence really consists in their subsequently denying the fact of payment. That however, could not be taken in to account in the present, trial. The Rule must be made absolute, the conviction and sentence passed on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Harai Chandra Nama Vs. Osmanali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.337
1. In this case the learned District Magistrate on appeal acquitted the accused but without really going into the case or discussing the evidence or coming to any conclusion thereon. He says that the Trying Magistrate may have been right in believing the prosecution witnesses instead of the defence witnesses, but, as he considered that it was a matter where the complainant ought to have gone to the Civil Court and availed himself; of the procedure laid down for Civil Courts, he acquitted the accused. That was obviously not a good reason in a case where the matter had been tried out in the first Court and the Magistrate had come to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of criminal trespass. We accordingly set aside the order of acquittal on appeal and direct that the appeal be re-heard....
Tag this Judgment!Nafar Chandra Chandra Vs. Maharajadhiraj Sir Bejoy Chand Mahatab Bahad ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.526
1. In this appeal we are concerned with the chowkidari chukran lands of Mouza Someparah.2. These lands were resumed by Government in 1898, and were thereafter transferred to the Zemindar (the Maharajah of Burdwan) subject to an annual assessment of Rs. 51-5-0. By a lease, dated 10th Chait 1308, the Maharajah next let out the lands to respondent No. 2 at a yearly rent of Rs. 77, and he in his turn has settled upon portions thereof cultivating tenants who in this appeal are respondents Nos. 3 to 26.3. The plaintiff-appellant is the owner of an eight-anna share in the Putni of Mouza Someparah and the only question argued before us is whether the chowkidari chakran lands of the Mouza were excluded from the Putni.4. It is now common ground that the term's upon which the grant of the Putni was made are embodied in a kabuliyat (Exhibit B) executed by one Radharaman Thakur in favour of the Zemindar on the 21st Ashar 1216, corresponding with the 3rd of July 1809.5. The grant is it respect of th...
Tag this Judgment!Jugai Krishna Mullick Vs. Phul Kumari Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.564
1. In this case one Phnl Kumari Dassi has sued as. the administratrix to the estate of her deceased husband for the purpose of having a sale of part of the estate for arrears of revenue set aside.2. The petitioner before us one Jugal Kishore Mullick, claiming to be a son adopted to her deceased husband by Phul Kumari and being now of full age, applied to be made a party plaintiff in the suit. The application was refused by the Subordinate Judge of Alipore in whose Court the suit is pending, on the ground that the administratrix fully represented the estate and that there was nothing to show that she had interests adverse to the interests of the petitioner.3. Here there can be no doubt that the Subordinate Judge has fallen into error.4. In the new current year the petitioner in fact brought a suit (No. 212 of 1917) on the Original Side of this Court to recover possession from Phul Kumari and for accounts. In that suit Phul Kumari has entered appearance and while apparently admitting the...
Tag this Judgment!T.W. Higgins Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Through t ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.221
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 21st of February 1916.2. The proceedings before the learned District Judge originated in a reference under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in reference to certain land which has been compulsorily acquired for the Forest Department for the purpose of making a road.3. The learned Judge slightly increased the amount awarded by the Collector. Against that decision the appellant has appealed to this Court.4. Now in a case like the present the compensation payable to the appellant cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy and the Court has to see whether the evidence adduced displaces the amount awarded by the Collector, which was slightly increased by the learned District Judge. The appellant at the hearing before the learned District Judge in support of his case examined himself a witness named Atar Ali and two other witnesses. On the side of the respondent, 3 witnesses...
Tag this Judgment!Chowdhury Kasi Nath Mitra Vs. Bhikan Charan Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.778
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Midnapore, dated the 29th day of August 1916. The appeal is one of the most frivolous nature. I doubt whether I have ever seen an appeal with less to support it than the present one; and, if I may say so, that is saying a good deal. The suit was brought to enforce a registered mortgage bond. The suit was of the simplest description and the mortgage-bond bore interest at the rate of 9 1/2 per cent, per annum with annual rests, which in this country certainly is not excessive. The mortgage is admitted by both sides.2. The two points raised in this appeal are these: First of all, that a part of the claim is barred by limitation and secondly, that the interest contracted to be paid by the mortgage-bond is penal. Both the points are equally bad. The mortgage itself was dated the 7th May 1906. I give the date under the ftregorian Calendar, because I find it more convenient. The mortgage pu...
Tag this Judgment!AhamuddIn TamijuddIn and ors. Vs. AmiruddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.216
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the decision of the learned second Subordinate Judge of Comillah, dated the 24th March 1917. The appeal is preferred against a preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition. The parties are Mahomedans. They had a common ancestor, that is, the grandfather of the first three defendants one Fazil Mahomed, Fazil Mahomed had two sons, Jamiruddi and Maniruddi. Jamiruddi married Tilakjan, the defendant No. 4, and of that marriage there were two daughters only, namely, Atardan and Nabojan. Jamiruddi then died and Maniruddi married his widow Tilakjan. The children that Maniruddi had were, first of all, the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, three sons. He had also a daughter named Safarjan. Safarjan married the first plaintiff and had one son and no more, namely, the plaintiff No. 2. The share sought to be recovered in this suit was the share that Safarjan took under the Muhammadan Law as one of the heirs of her deceased fathe...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh SamiruddIn and ors. Vs. Sheikh Abdul Syed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.734
Charles Chitty, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to establish his right under a Kat Kobala, dated 22nd February 1906, executed by Abdul Hakim, predecessor-in-interest of defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 were added as claiming the mortgaged property under a prior title. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, but on appeal the decree was set aside and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court. The facts found are as follows: On 15th October 1895 Abdul Hakim and Abdul Sobhan mortgaged certain properties to Baroda Prosad De and Sasil Kumar De, defendants Nos. 5 and 6. The mortgagees brought a suit (No. 161 of 1902) to enforce their mortgage. On 27th January 1903 a petition of compromise was filed and the suit decreed in accordance therewith (Exhibits A and 0). By that the decretal amount was fixed at Rs. 4l7 and arrangement made for payment by instalment with the usual default clause. It was further provided that if the whole amount should not be recovere...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »