Kolkata Court June 1902 Judgments
Baroda Kanta Bose Vs. Chunder Kanta Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal682
Hill, J.1. The only question argued in this appeal was whether the appellants, the plaintiffs in the suit, are bound by a certain order, whereby a sale of the property in suit held in execution of a decree was set aside. If they are so bound, then admittedly their suit fails and this appeal must likewise fail.2. The property in question, a jama comprising some 22 bighas of land, was held by some of the present defendants under one Radhica Chowdhurani and certain other persons, who were co-sharers with her in the zemindari. Radhica Chowdhurani obtained a decree against those defendants to the extent of her share in the zemindari for arrears of rent and, on the 5th February, 1886, brought the jama to sale in execution of her decree. It was purchased by one Natabar Ghose, the father of defendant No. 30, as benamdar for the plaintiffs, but neither he nor the plaintiffs ever obtained possession. The present suit was instituted, on the 3rd February, 1898, for a declaration of the plaintiffs'...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chunder Giri Vs. Hem Chunder Mookhopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal823
Banerjee and Pratt, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant to recover a certain sum of money due on a promissory note. The defence was that the interest claimed was exorbitant, and was not therefore recoverable. The only question upon which the parties went to trial was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the interest claimed.2. The first Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the interest claimed, as the defendant appeared to be 'a young; man who had not much worldly experience and sound discretion,' and it was 'pretty clear that the defendant No. 2 took undue advantage of the position of the defendant No. 1' and compelled him to enter into the transaction in question.'3. On appeal the Lower Appellate Court has affirmed that decision, but solely on the ground that the bargain was an unconscionable one, as 'the rate of interest was so exorbitant as to be ridiculous.'4. In second appeal it is contended on behalf of' the plaintiff appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Hazra Vs. Protap NaraIn Mukhopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal740
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff sued the Hazra defendants for arrears of rent due for 2 bighas 8 cottahs from 1299 to Assar 1302, but with the permission of the Court he withdrew his suit because the defendants stated that they held the lands partly as tenants of the Pal defendants, mukuraridars, and partly (one plot) as rent-free. He has now sued all these persons for a declaration that those lands are his mal lands, and that the Pals have no mukurari right or title. He also asks for the money sued for as rent in the former suit and mesne profits up to the date of recovery of possession. The same defence is made by the Hazras and the Pal defendants. The Hazias deny that they are the tenants of the plaintiff, and that they have ever paid rent to him or his predecessors. The Pals state that they hold plot No. 4 as rent-free and the other lands as mukuraridars under the plaintiff, and they also state that the Hazra defendants are their tenants. In proof of their title as mukuraridars the Pal...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup Lal Vs. Shah Latafat Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal735
Pratt and Mitra, JJ.1. This Rule was issued under the following circumstances: One Monji Lal on his own behalf and also as next friend of his minor nephew, Ram Sarup Lal, brought a suit for the value of goods sold and delivered. Subsequently, on the 6th August 1901, he presented a petition to the Court in these terms:' In this suit Shah Latafat Hossein and Shahed Hossein have personally told your petitioner to withdraw the suit, and that they would pay the amount found on adjustment of accounts after the sed an or been withdrawn. Tour petitioner has full faith in them. it is therefore prayed that the suit be allowed to be with drawn and be struck off. As the opposite party does not (sic)clain costs, no costs be allowed.' On the face of that petition, the pleaders for the defendants wrote: ' Without admitting the contents we give up the costs.' The order of the Court was that the plaintiffs do withdraw from the suit.2. On the 6th September 1901, the minor plaintiff through his mother pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mudit Narayan Singh Vs. Ranglal Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal797
Pratt and Mitra, JJ.1. The plaintiffs are some of the members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Benares School of the Mitakshara system of Hindu Law, the defendants Nos 1 and 2 are the holders in zaripeshgi lease of two annas' share of Peota out of an eight annas' share which at one time belonged to the joint family, and the other defendants are the remaining members of the joint family. The suit was instituted for the purpose of recovering possession of this two annas' share of Peota, which the plaintiffs alleged had been improperly and without right alienated from the family by Bhairo Pershad, a member since dead. The suit was dismissed by the Courts below, and the plaintiffs other than, the plaintiff No. 1, who died during the pendency of the appeal in the Court of the District Judge, are the appellants in this Court.2. The following are the findings of fact arrived at concurrently by the Courts below. Plaintiff No. 1, Mudit Narayan Singh, was in or about the year 1858 the man...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. Hukum Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal548
Hill and Brett, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order passed, by the District Judge of Moorshedabad on the 12th July, 1901, rejecting an application made by the appellant under the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a sale in execution of a decree on the ground of fraud or material irregularity in the conduct of it.2. The facts of the case, as they are to be gathered from the materials before us, are as follows. On a date which does not appear, the appellant obtained a decree on the Original Side of this Court against the respondent, Chattrapat Singh, who may be referred to as the judgment-debtor, for a sum of Rs. 11, 345-11. This decree was transferred to the Court of the District Judge of Moorshedabad for execution, and was thereafter transferred by that Court to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, where the proceedings in execution were registered as case No. 93 of 1900. When these transfers took place we are not informed, but on the 8th Novembe...
Tag this Judgment!Benode Lal Pakrashi Vs. Brajendra Kumar Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal810
Ghose and Geidt, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor.2. The decree-holders obtained a decree which was for the sum of Rs. 29,000 odd in the year 1887. The amount of the decree was payable in ten instalments, the last of the instalments covering the sum of Rs. 4,189. It appears that all the nine instalments were duly paid up, and execution was taken out for the last instalment of Rs. 4,189. To this execution two objections were raised by the judgment-debtor, the first being that before the decree in question was passed, it had been agreed between the parties that in the event of the judgment-debtor paying up in due time the first nine instalments, the decree-holders would net enforce the last instalment; and, secondly, that the judgment-debtor had paid into the hands of the decree-holders the sum of Rs. 2,500 in the year 1884 on account of the claim which the latter had against the judgment-debtor, and that therefore the decree-Holders were not entitled to execute the decree ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›