Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1880)ILR5Cal364
Prinsep, J.1. Although it is not necessary that I should deal with all the points raised in these appeals, I think it my duty to do so, as it is not improbable that these suits, or some of them, will be taken in appeal to Her Majesty's Privy Council. In dealing with these cases, it is preferable that they should be first of all taken up together on points common to all, and that afterwards the facts peculiar to each should be considered.2. The first objection taken is to the validity of the adoption, and whether the plaintiff is the lawfully adopted son of Aree Bhunjun Singh. That Aree Bhunjun was himself a minor, about 15 years of age, when he is said to have adopted the child Dulputty, would not render adoption invalid. Mr. Justice Dwarkanath Mitter (Mr. Justice Paul concurring), in the case of Rajendro Narain Lahoree v. Saroda Soonduree Dabee (15 W.R., 548), has clearly stated the law in this respect, and this case has been quoted with approbation by their Lordships of the Judicial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 54Ind.Cas.862
1. This is an appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendents-appellants from farther building on or changing the character pf the land of which the plaintiff is seeking to recorver possession from them. The land in dispute consists of two plots, the first plot being about a bigha in area according to the plaintiff and about 16 cottahs according to the defendants. The second plot is about a bigha in area and there is a tank on a portion of it.2. The plaintiff alleges that these 2 plots of lands are included within the Estate No. 2402 of the 24-Perganahs Collectorate which was purchased by him at a sale for arrears of revenue on the 8th January. 1915. In August 1915, the plaintiff issued a general notice on the property to the effect that the interests of tenants under lessees (except those protected) were thereby annulled.3. It appears that on the 8th and 9th August 1911, the two plots of land in dispute, which belonged to a family known as the Haldar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal116
Ameer Ali, J.1. The question raised in this reference is of such vital importance to the Mahomedans of India and so materially affects their law and religion, the enjoyment of which has been guaranteed to them by the British Government, that I must state at some length the reasons that have compelled me to differ from my colleagues.2. The facts of the case are as follow:One Bikani Mia, a Mahomedan inhabitant of Dacca, shortly before his departure in 1874 on a pilgrimage to Mecca, executed a wakfnama in respect of a considerable portion of his property and registered the document in accordance with the law.The deed recites that the executant was in the full possession of his sense and power of understanding,' that he was not indebted to anybody, that the property to which it related was acquired by Bikani himself, and that he had an 'exclusive right, ownership and possession therein.3. The executant then goes on to say--I now think it advisable to lay down, according to our Mahomedan sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1941Cal1
1. Touzi No. 523 of the Murshidabad Collectorate, which comprised pergunah Goas, was permanently settled in 1793 on the basis of the decennial settlement of 1789. It consisted of twelve huddas, each hudda being sub-divided into several tarafs of collection of villages. We are in this appeal concerned with village Udaynagore in taraf Udaynagore which is in hudda Ikuri. In 1799 Raja Debi Singh purchased the said touzi or zemindary at a sale for recovery of arrears of revenue. The zemindary ultimately devolved by succession on his descendant Raja Gopal Singh, Krishna Chandra Singh and Earn Chandra Singh. At a partition in or about the year 1830, Earn Chandra Singh got in his eight annas odd share six out of the twelve huddas, including hudda Ikuri. On 8th April 1836 he granted patni taluks of two mehals, to one Radhabullav Mukho-padhya (ex. 6 b(1), B 148). The first mehal, which comprised taraf Udaynagore with. some exceptions, was let out at an annual patni rent of Rs. 1852-0-11 (sicca =...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1926Cal1
N.R. Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the Jheria Raj, an impartible estate on declaration of the plaintiff's right by inheritance thereto.2. The last male owner was Raja Durga Prasad Singh and the 3 plaintiffs are his widows. Raja Durga Prasad was the grandson of Raja Udit, and the defendant Was the grandson of Nanda Kishore. Raja Udit, Nanda Kishore, and Brojo Lal were the sons of Raja Sangram.3. The plaintiff's ease, shortly stated, was that Nanda Kishore and Brojo Lal (and their branches) were entirely separate in food, worship and estate from their elder brother, Raja Udit and his successors, that the Jheria estate thus being the separate estate of Raja Durga Prosad, the plaintiffs were (or the Plaintiff No. 1 as the senior widow was) entitled to it, and all the plaintiffs were entitled to the self-acquisitions of their husband, that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud and conspiracy, and that certain documents bantannamas and an am-m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ11Cal
Chakravartti, C.J.1. The appellant, Sri Jatindra Nath Mukherjee, entered Government service on 1 November 1934 as an appraiser under the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. He was confirmed in that post in 1935 and continued to serve in it till 6 November 1942, when his services were lent to the Foreign Trade Control Department of the Import Trade Control Organization which was then located in the Customs House. His rise in the Borrowing Department appears to have been rapid. There he began as an Enquiry Officer, but in 1951, when the proceedings out of which the present appeal has arisen were commenced against him, he was occupying the office of a Controller of Exports.2. Of the various posts held by the appellant from time to time during the intervening period, particular reference to only one, on which some argument turned, is necessary. He was appointed an. Executive Officer with effect from 1 December 1943 and by a subsequent notification he was declared to have been appointed to that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1943Cal266
Nasim Ali, J.1. These two appeals are against two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly dismissing two suits instituted by the appellants in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hooghly for the re-versal of sales of two Patni Taluks, viz., Lot Rampura and Lot Haripur in the district of Hooghly under the Bengal Patni Taluk Regulations of 1819. The material provisions of the Patni Regulations are these:Section 8. First - Zamindars, that is, proprietors under direct engagements with the Crown, shall be entitled to apply in the manner following for periodical sales, of any tenures upon which the right of gelling or bringing to sale for an arrear of rent may have been specially reserved by stipulation in the engagements interchanged on the creation of the tenure.Second - On the first day of Baisakh, that is, at the commencement of the following year from that of which the rent is due, the zamindar shall present a petition...to the Collector, containing a specification of any ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1925Cal447
Rankin, J.1. The plaintiff brings her suit for a declaration that the orders of the Board of Revenue whereby certain char land has been assessed to additional revenue under Act IX of 1847 are ultra vires and invalid. The land in question is an area of over 10 acres or 30 bighas. The mouza in which the plaintiff is interested is a mouza called Chandigram and, on the opposite side of a certain river or rivulet, as to which I shall say something in a moment, there is another mouza called Pathril. The plaintiff's mouza lies within a Parganah called Kagmari and, on the opposite side of the river already mentioned, facing Kagmari is a Parganah called Atia. The 10 acres in suit are shown in the Thak and the Revenue Surveys of 1850 and 1851 in this manner:-There was at that time undoubtedly a river known as Alam. The Revenue Survey Map shows it in 1851 as a flowing river. Between the plaintiff's mouza and the opposite mouza, the line of demarcation is put in the middle of that river; but, on o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1899)ILR26Cal465
O'Kinealy, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the father and the administrator of the estate of one Atindra Nath Mookerjee, who was fatally injured on the 27th of April 1896, while travelling as a passenger on the East Indian Railway between the stations of Secundrabad and Dadri. Atindra Nath Mookerjee died on the 5th of May 1896 of the injuries sustained by him, and the plaintiff charges that his death was caused by the neglect of the defendants. The relief claimed is of a two-fold character. The sum of Rs. 7,000 is claimed as damages for the loss resulting to the plaintiff from the death of his son, and a further sum of Rs. 8,000 is claimed by the plaintiff as damages for loss to the estate of Atindra Nath Mookerjee, such loss also having been occasioned by the neglect of the defendants. As to this latter portion of the relief claimed by the plaintiff I may say at once that no evidence has been given to show that any precuniary loss or damage was caused to the estate of Atindra Nath ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal523
Cunningham, J.1. This case comes before us in the exercise of our powers of criminal revision.2. The facts, as set out in the petition of Hursee Mahapatro, are asfollows :A complaint was preferred to the Raja of Mohurbhunj, charging the petitioner and two others with libel. Thereupon the Raja issued summonses and warrants through the Magistrate of Midnapore for the attendance of the accused, who are residents of that district. The accused petitioned Mr. Price, the Magistrate of Midnapore, that the case should not be tried by the Raja. The Magistrate forwarded the petition, on the 30th June 1880, to the Superintendent of the Tributary Mehals (a post occupied by the Commissioner of Cuttack); and on the 12th July 1880, he addressed the Raja, requesting him to make over the papers of the case to the Magistrate of Midnapore; 'who,' it was observed, 'has the powers of an assistant to the Superintendent of the Tributary Mehals.' This officer, under his usual official seal, summoned two of the...
Tag this Judgment!