Kolkata Court November 1903 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.
Hinga Bibee Vs. Munna Bibee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal150
Sale, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff for restoration of a suit which was dismissed by Mr. Justice Harington on the 10th August last.2. Notice of the present application was given on the 29th August 1903, and the date on which the application was intended to be brought on as mentioned in the notice was the 3rd of September. The application was not made then, nor was it mentioned at any time until a day after the day on which the Court reopened after the long vacation, that is, on the 19th November 1998. The Court reopened on the 18th, but motion day, according to the usual rules of practice, was the 19th; therefore it has been suggested that the first day after reopening of the Court means the first day on which the Court in the ordinary course takes motions.3. I am not able to accept that interpretation of the rules. It seems to me necessary that the application should have been made on the 18th November, the first day after the re-opening of the Court, and if t...
Raghunath Charan Singh Vs. Shamo Koeri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal344
Banerjee and Brett, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge returning the petition of appeal should not be set aside and the case sent back to him for a proper decree being made, or why the decree pronounced by the Munsif should not be set aside upon the ground that he had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, or why such other order as to this Court may seem fit and proper should not be made.2. The facts of the case are shortly these: A suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Sassaram, it being valued at less than one thousand rupees. Amongst other objections the defendant, the petitioner before us, urged that the suit had been undervalued and, if properly valued, it would He not in the Munsif's Court, but in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The Munsif disallowed this objection and disposed of the suit on the merits, giving the plaintiff a decree. Against that decree the defendant preferred an appeal t...
Gunundra Prosad Vs. Baijnath Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal370
Banerjee and Brett, JJ.1. Two questions have been raised in this appeal on behalf of the plaintiff appellant, first whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the mortgage lien of the mortgagee defendants was not extinguished by their purchase of the mortgaged property; and second, whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the objection that the sale in execution of the decree in the mortgage suit was invalid by reason of the decree nisi in that suit never having been made, absolute on the ground of the plaintiff not having raised the objection at any earlier stage of the proceedings.2. In our opinion both these questions ought to be answered in the affirmative.3. With reference to the first question, our attention is called to the provisions of Section 101 of the Transfer of Property Act, but those provisions evidently do not apply to the present case because, the purchase of the mortgaged property has been ma...
Upendra NaraIn Bhuttacharjee Vs. Pratap Chunder Pardhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal703
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. These six appeals relate to six suits brought by the plaintiff for the possession of certain chowkidari chakran lands resumed by Government and now in the possession of the tenant defendants. The Government made over the land to the zemindar defendant, who allowed the tenant defendants (who were the old chowkidars) to remain on the lands and accepted rent from them. The plaintiff is a lessee under a putnidar under the zemindar defendant. By the terms of the putnidar's putni lease he is entitled to all resumed lands without any adjustment of his rent. He has therefore a right to the disputed lands, and the plaintiff, as his representative, can evict the tenant defendants from them, if they do not come to terms with him, which they apparently have not done. The first Court accordingly decreed the suits in favour of the plaintiff. The second Court has modified the decree of the first Court, relying on the decision of Hari Narain Mozumdar v. Mukund Lal Mundal (1900...
Ganesh Dutt Thakoor Vs. Jewach Thakoorain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal262
Andrew Scoble, J.1. This suit was, brought by the respondent, Jewach Thakoorain, the widow of one Balmukund Thakoor, to determine her rights under a partition of family property which she alleged had taken place in her husband's lifetime, and for such relief as she might be found entitled to under the circumstances of the ease. The defendants were the three surviving brothers of her husband,--Ganesh Dutt Thakoor, Raja Takoor, and Chhedi Thakoor; Niterbati Thakoorain, the wife of Chhedi Thakoor, in whose name one of the: properties alleged to belongs to the family had been purchased, and Harakhbati Thakoorain, the mother of the four brothers, would be entitled to a share on the partition, if proved. All the parties are Brahmins of Tirhoot, and the law which governs the case is the Mitakshara law, as modified in its application in Bengal.2. Chowdhry Raja Thakoor died on the 7th October 1902, and by an Order of His Majesty in Council dated the 28th day of March 1903, Chowdhry Manindra Nar...
Tamijuddi Vs. Asgar Howladar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1903
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal256
Mitra and Chitty, JJ.1. There is no dispute as to the facts of this case. The defendant No. 2 is the superior landlord. The defendant No. 1 holds a plot of land under him. This plot is a portion of a holding held at one time by a raiyat Arman Howladar under the defendant No. 2. In 1889 Arman Howladar granted a lease of it along with other plots of land to the plaintiff. The lease was one from year to year it was not permanent or for a term of years. The defendant No. 2 dispossessed the plaintiff, but the plaintiff is still in possession of other plots, which he holds under Arman. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of this plot, on the ground that he was at least a tenant from year to year under Arman and that the defendants had no right to dispossess him.2. On these facts the Munsiff held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed and gave him a decree for possession. The' lower Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that under Section 85 of...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›