Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.129
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for recovery of possession of an estate of considerable value left by her husband, Roy Sultan Bahadur, who died on the 11th April 1892. The circumstances under which the litigation has been commenced have not been investigated by the Court below, but in so far as they are cited in the plaint, they may be thus briefly narrated. Shortly after the death of her husband the plaintiff took out Letters of Ad-ministration with a copy annexed of the deceased's will, which had been executed on the 23rd March, 1892. The will authorized her to adopt three sons in succession, and on the 4th December 1893, she adopted one Elkhart Abrader, who died on the 30th December 1894. The plaintiff thereupon continued to be in possession of the estate of which she had been divested by the adoption and which, subsequently, reverted in her as the mother of her first adopted son. 'On the 5th March 1897, she took the present defendant Bad shah Abrader as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.124
Beaman, J.1. The question in this case is whether certain of the defendants are precluded from contesting the plaintiff's allegation that the property in his hands is his self-acquired property by the decision in Ahmedhhoy Ilubibhhoy v. Cassumbhoy Ahmedhhoy 12 B. 280. And this question breaks up into two main parts, first, whether this point was in fact decided in Ahmedbhoy's case 12 B. 280. Next, whether if it, was so decided, that decision constitutes resjudicata against the defendants concerned.2. With reference to the first of these points, it is material to quote their Lordships' actual words, which are : this is sufficient .for the decision of the case,' that is to say, their finding upon the point with which they had just dealt is sufficient to dispose of the case. But they go on to say: 'We think it advisable to express an opinion on the question &c.; and, therefore, they proceed to discuss the evidence relating to the character of the property in Ahmedbhoy's hands and come to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.34
1. This appeal, which has been preferred on behalf of the second defendant in the Court below, is directed against a decree for balance of arrears of rent of a darpatni taluk. The circumstances under which the plaintiff preferred his claim he in a narrow compass and may be briefly described. The plaintiff-respondent and the second defendant-appellant, who are related as uncle and nephew, were the holders of the patni taluk Dhurmapota under the zemindary of the Maharaja of Burdwan. The first defendant held a darpatni under the paint in respect of which he had stipulated to pay an annual rent of Rs. 10,400 together with cesses and interest. He was unable to pay', rent regularly and in the beginning of 1902, a considerable sum of money was found due as arrears of rent. On the 11th April 1902, he executed an acknowledgment in respect of his liability on that date. This acknowledgment sets out in detail the amount or rent in arrears in respect of each of the four years l305 to 1308, as also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 4Ind.Cas.249
1. The plaintiffs who are the sons of one Vankatrao sued the first three defendants for possession of certain vatan land which they alleged had been leased by, their father by a lease, dated 1872, which was operative only for the period of his life. The plaintiffs were, at the date of the suit, joint with their cousins the sons of Dashrath, Venkatrao's brother, who with Venkatrao had been a joint vatandar of the Deshpande vatan to which the property in suit was attached.2. The first three defendants contended that the lease of 1872 was merely a formal recognition of a perpetual tenancy which had been in existence prior to the date of the Vatan Regulation of 1827 and that, therefore, they were entitled to remain in possession as permanent tenants.3. This argument rested on an allegation of fact which was held by the lower appellate Court to be not proved. This is sufficient in Special Appeal to dispose of the argument.4. We will now discuss the points of law which have been urged. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1910)ILR37Cal467
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The appellant, Ashok Chandra Nandy, having died since the institution of these appeals, there are at present before the Court 18 appellants, all of whom have been convicted under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code of offences against the State. Two of the appellants, Barindra Kumar Ghose and Ullaskar Dutt, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death; eight of them, i.e., Indra Nath Nandi, Upendra Nath Banerjee, Bibhuti Bhusan Sircar, Hrishikesh Kanjilal, Sudhir Kumar Sircar, Sailendra Nath Bose, Hem Chandra Das and Barendra Chandra Sen, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A., 122 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life; Abinash Chandra Bhattacharjee was convicted under Sections 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life: Indu Bhushan Roy was convicted under Sections 121A and 122 and sentenced to transportation for life; Pares Chandra Maulik,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.359
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The appellant, Ashok Chandra Nandy having died since the institution of these appeals, there are at present before the Court 18 appellants, all of whom have been convicted under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code of offences against the State. Two of the appellants, Barindra Kumar Ghose and Ullaskar Dutt, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death eight of them, i.e., Indra Nath Nandi, Upendra Nath Banerjee, Bibhuti Bhusan Sircar, Hrishikesh Kanjilal, Sudhir Kumar Sircar, Sailendra Nath Bose, Hem Chandra Das and Barendra Chandra Sen, were convicted under Sections 121, 121A, 122 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life; Abinash Chandra Bhattacharjee was convicted under Sections 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life: Indu Bhushan Roy was convicted under Sections 121A and 122 and sentenced to transportation for life, Pares Chandra Maulik, Sisir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 5Ind.Cas.365
Stephen, J.1. In this case a Rule has been granted calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why a conviction of the petitioner of an offence of rioting under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on two of the grounds mentioned in the petition. The first, of these is that the trying Magistrate held a local enquiry and was influenced by certain things he saw there, and imported his knowledge of what he had seen into his judgment in disposing of the case, the second that the common object stated in the charge was different from that found by both the lower Courts.2. The second objection may be very shortly dealt with. The common object charged was by means of criminal force to obtain possession of the Kill-khana lands belonging to one Ghisa Alia. The lands so referred to comprised a 15 cottas plot and a 5 cotta plot; the offence was found to have been committed to obtain possession of the 5 cotta plot only. As the 5 cotta plot was included in the Kill-khana land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 5Ind.Cas.213
Beaman, J.1. The defendant in this suit, one Haji Esmail, has put up a large building at the corner of Hornby Road and Church Gate Street. The plans were submitted to the Municipal authorities in 1907 and on the 23rd November 1907 the Engineering Department informed the defendant that there was no objection to the proposed extension as shown on the amended plans, provided the work was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act and Building Bye-laws. The plans which were then submitted to the Municipal authorities give an all round height of 70 feet. But the permission granted by the Engineering Department is qualified and the defendant is warned that he must conform with the provisions of the Municipal Act and Building Bye-Laws. Apparently at that time it had not occurred to the Municipal authorities that the proposed extension, meaning I suppose clown Church Gate Street, would infringe any of those provisions or Bye-Laws. The work progressed up to April 1909 wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR274
Beaman, J.1. The defendant in this suit, one Haji Esmail, has put up a large building at the corner of Hornby-road and Church-gate Street. The plans were submitted to the Municipal authorities in 1907, and on the 23rd November 1907 the Engineering Department informed the defendant that there was no objection to the proposed extension as shown on the amended plans, provided the work was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act and Building Bye-laws. The plans which were then submitted to the Municipal authorities give an all round height of 70 ft. But the permission granted by the Engineering Department is qualified and the defendant is warned that he must conform with the provisions of the Municipal Act and Building Bye-laws. Apparently at that time it had not occurred to the Municipal authorities that the proposed extension, meaning I suppose down Churchgate Street, would infringe any of those provisions or Bye-laws. The work progressed up to April 1909, when...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 5Ind.Cas.81
Teunon, J.1. In this case plaintiff brought a suit against the Chairman of the Chapra Municipality contesting the validity of a certain assessment.2. In the Court of first instance the suit was dismissed on the merits and also on the preliminary ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 363 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884. In the first appellate Court the other issues arising were not discussed and the suit was dismissed on the preliminary ground alone.3. Against this decision plaintiff appeals to this Court. The defendant-respondent, it may be noted, does not appear.4. Section 363 of the Bengal Municipal Act provides that in respect of any thing done under the Act, no suit shall be brought against a body of Municipal Commissioners until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office of the Commissioners.5. Before me, as in the Courts below, it is the case of the plaintiff that the required notice wa...
Tag this Judgment!