Kolkata Court December 1905 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.
Ferguson Vs. Um Chand Boid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal343
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. These two appeals arise out of two similar suits which were tried by the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahi. Both the suits were brought by money-lenders against Ferguson of Berhampore on account of suing of money, which had been lent to Moore, who was Ferguson's Manager at the Seroil Silk Factory in Rajshahi. In appeal No. 197 Um Chand Boid sued for Rs. 7,000, which he had lent to Moore on a hand note on the 20th February 1901, at 1 per cent, interest, and in appeal No. 389, Harak Chand and others sued for the balance of Rs. 5,000, which they had lent to Moore, on a hand note on the 16th February 1901, at one per cent. interest. In the former case, the hand note states that Moore borrowed Rs. 7,000 as Attorney for Ferguson and in the latter case, the hand note states that Ferguson borrowed Rs. 5,000 through his attorney and manager, Moore. The suits have been brought against both Ferguson and Moore, but only Ferguson contested them. The Subordinate Judge has decre...
Secretary of State for India Vs. Belchambers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal396
Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against an award of the Special Land Acquisition Judge of 24-Pergunnahs, made under Section 26 in modification of the award of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. The property, which is the subject-matter of the acquisition, is situated within the municipal limits of Calcutta, and has been acquired by the Government of Bengal, at the expense and for the benefit of the Corporation. At the time of the declaration under Section 6, it was admittedly bustee land, that is, land let out for the building of huts under an arrangement by which each tenant of the land is the owner of his hut. The Collector awarded Rs. 22,572 for the land and Rs. 5,168 for the huts; the latter amount has been accepted by the tenant?, and there is no dispute with regard to it. As regards the amount awarded for the land, however, the claimant refused to accept it, and upon his application the matter was referred...
Hassan Kuli Khan Vs. Nakchhedi Nonia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal200
Pratt and Geidt, JJ.1. The plaintiff obtained a lease in November 1902 of the proprietary interest of one Khalilar Rahman in certain villages, which had been assigned to his share on batwara. He sued the defendants in these cases for bhaoli rent for the year 1310 F.S. on the allegation that the lands used to be held bhaoli till the end of the year 1290, that for the years 1291 to 1295 the rents were nakdi, but were again converted into bhaoli from 1296. The defendants pleaded that they held and always had held the lands on cash, rent and not on produce rent. The first Court decreed the suits in plaintiff's favour. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the rents were nakdi and not bhaoli, and that the plaintiff's were precluded by Section 20 of the Cess Act from suing for higher rents than those mentioned in the Road Cess return for 1295, unless it were shown that the rents were lawfully enhanced at a subsequent period, He was of opinion that the conversion of nakdi into bhaoli was ...
Hemchand Devchand Vs. Azam Sakarlal Chhotamlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal219
Arthur Wilson, J.1. The first of these appeals arises out of a suit institute in the Court of the Assistant Political Agent of Sorath Prant in Kathiawar (the term Prant meaning an administrative district). The grounds of the plaintiff's claim, so far as it has now to be noticed, were that in February 1893 he had advanced money to the late Darbar Shri Vala Naja Mamaiya, a shareholder in the Chief ship or Talukdari of Jetpur Chital in Kalhiawar, for the purpose of paying off debts due by the latter, who was a talukdar of the 6th class, and that the plaintiff had acquired possession; that Vala Naja died in May 1901; and that the plaintiff's rights as mortgagee had been interfered with or threatened by the nominal defendant as Manager for the substantial defendants, the successors of the deceased Chief. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration of his rights and an injunction. In effect therefore the suit was one to enforce a mortgage made by a deceased Chief against his successors. The Assis...
Basanta Kumar Singha Vs. Jogendra Nath Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal371
Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ.1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has given rise to this appeal, is the estate of one Haradhan Singh, who died on the 8th January 1896, leaving two first cousins--Ram Nath, the father of the plaintiffs, and Jadu Nath, the father of the defendants. It is not disputed that the three cousins originally formed a joint Hindu family governed by the law as expounded in the Mitakshara and that they subsequently separated. The plaintiffs allege that upon the death of Haradhan his estate was inherited in equal shares by Jadu Nath and Ram Nath, and that they, as the sons of Ram Nath, are entitled to a half share of the properties. The defendants allege, on the other hand, that alter the separation there was a reunion between Haradhan and Jadu Nath, and that consequently under the Hindu law, upon the death of Haradhan, Jadu Nath, his reunited cousin, became entitled to the whole of his estate in preference to his separated cousin Ram Nath. The substantial que...
Ram Gopal Bhuttacharjee Vs. NaraIn Chandra Bandopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal315
Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ.1. The facts which have given rise to the litigation out of which this appeal arises, so far as it is necessary to state them for the decision of the questions of law raised before us, are practically undisputed. The property which is the subject matter of this litigation originally belonged to the appellant. On the 2nd January 1898 he granted a maurasi and mokarari lease of this property, reserving an annual rent of one rupee, to his daughter Pravabati. Pravabati died in 1900 and on the 16th May 1901, the plaintiff took a sub-lease of the lands comprised in the tenancy from her husband, and on the basis of this sub-lease, the plaintiff seeks to recover possession. The appellant, who was the first defendant in the Court below, resisted the claim on the ground that as Pravabati died childless, leaving her mother as her heiress according to Hindu Law, her husband had no title to the property and could not confer any on the plaintiff. The Courts below have concur...
Oman Sheikh Vs. Halakuri Sheik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal679
Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. The facts of this case are shortly these: The plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants for recovery of possession of certain immoveable property and obtained a decree in the year 1892. They, however, did not apply to the Court, which made the decree for execution thereof within the time prescribed by the law of limitation. They then brought the present suit, and this was in August 1903, for recovery of possession of the same property upon the ground that though they did not obtain possession through the Court, yet they succeeded in getting possession amicably from the hands of the defendants, and that they continued in such possession until the year 1309 B.S., corresponding to the year 1902, when they were dispossessed.2. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit upon the ground that it is barred both under the provisions of Section 13 and Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code, and also upon the ground that the plaintiffs' cause of action, if ...
Hukum Chand Boid Vs. Kamalanand Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1905
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal927
Woodroffe, J.1. The appellant bought on the 14th May 1904 a putni taluk at a sale for arrears of rent. The respondents held a darputni in certain mauzas in the putni mehal. The appellant got possession. The respondents then brought a suit to set aside the sale. A decree was passed in their favour on the 24th August 1905 ordering that they should be put back into possession. On the 14th September the decree was signed and on the same day the respondents with haste applied for and obtained (notwithstanding an application by the respondents for stay of delivery in order to enable him to move this Court) an order for delivery of possession of the villages comprised in their durputm. On the 18th September an appeal, which is now pending, was filed in this Court. On the same date the appellant obtained a rule, No. 3423, under Section 545 of the Code calling upon the respondents to show cause why delivery of possession should not be stayed pending the hearing of the appeal. The rule further o...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›