Kolkata Court March 1906 Judgments
Megraj Marwari Vs. Nursing Mohan Thakur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal846
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The only question in this suit is whether the mortgagee, who has obtained a decree for sale in. a suit to realize his security, is entitled to interest upon his mortgage money up to the date of the confirmation of the sale or only up to the date of sale. That question prima facie depends upon the terms of the decree, which he has obtained. In the present case, the terms are that interest is to run up to the date of realization. The question is what is the date of realization. Is it the date of the sale or the date of the confirmation of the sale?2. There is, apparently, no direct authority in the Courts of India upon the subject, though a case Manilal Umedram v. Nanabhai Maneklal (1903) I.L.R. 28 Bom. 264 has been very properly called to our attention by the learned vakil for the appellant, and we do not think it is in his favour. There the Court put a construction upon the expression 'realization' and held that it means 'when the property is conver...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Ghose Vs. Gora Chand Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal683
Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent.2. The Munsiffi dismissed the suit as not maintainable. Both parties appealed.3. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was maintainable and that the defendants were occupancy raiyats. He disallowed the plaintiff's claim for puja kharach, road cess at one anna in the rupee and interest at 75 per cent. per annum, all which the defendant had agreed in his kabuliat to pay. The plaintiffs appeal on the points of (1) puja kharach, (2) road cess and (3) interest.4. We agree with the Subordinate Judge in holding that puja kharach is an abwab and cannot be allowed. It is obvious from the defendant's kabuliat itself that it is an abwab, because it is something agreed to be paid in excess of the rent.5. The stipulation for payment of road cess at the rate of one anna in the rupee is of a different character. We do not think that road cess comes within the definition of an abwab contained in Section 74 of the Bengal Tenancy ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurudeo Narayan Sinha Vs. Amrit Narayan Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal689
Harington and Pratt, JJ.1. The respondent having obtained a mortgage decree against the appellant applied for execution. by sale of the mortgaged, property on the 11th January 1901. The judgment-debtor obtained three postponements and this allowed his son to file a suit claiming a one-fourth share of the mortgaged property and to obtain an. injunction for stay of the sale of that share. On the 15th May 1901 the injunction was given effect to and next day only a 3/4 ths share of the property was put up for sale. No one would bid and the execution case was accordingly dismissed.2. The suit of the judgment-debtor's son was first dismissed for default in. January 1902 and finally withdrawn on the 21st June 1904, A few days afterwards, i.e., on the 4th July 1904, the decree-holder renewed his application for the sale of the entire property mortgaged. This application was resisted by the judgment-debtor as regards 3/4ths of the property on the ground that the application was time barred as b...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Dutt and Banku Behary Banerjee Vs. Administrator-general ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal713
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. These two appeals are brought against a judgment and decree of this Court in its Original Jurisdiction in favour of the Administrator-General of Bengal for Rs. 1,07,159-9 against the appellants, on an administration bond executed by them, conditioned for the due performance by Ernest Cowie of his duties as Administrator-General of the estate of Edmund Craster Craster, deceased.2. Edmund Craster Craster died in August 1898 in England, leaving assets of considerable value in this country. The bulk of these assets consisted of 86 1/2 shares in the Bank of Bengal.3. On July 29th 1902 Ernest Hardwicke Cowie, a member of the firm of Sanderson & Co., the Solicitors of the Government of India in Calcutta, and who was then regarded as a man of high probity and position, alleging, that Edmund Craster Craster had died on August 31st 1900, leaving one Henry Craster Craster, his only son and next of kin, applied for letters of administration to the deceased's es...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Gunga Bissen Vs. Liladhur Lowjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1237
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application under the Indian Arbitration Act to file an award, which is opposed by the person against whom the award has been given.2. Liladhur Lowjee, the opposite party, contracted to sell a certain quantity of corn sacks to the applicants. He did not deliver these goods. It is admitted that the contract, which was by bought and sold notes, was entered into and there is no question as to the parties being ad idem. What the opposite party says is that there was a contract, but that it had subsequently been cancelled. This is denied.3. Now Clause 12 of the contract contains a provision under which any dispute arising on or out of the contract should be referred to arbitration under the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and that the decision of the Chamber should be accepted as final and binding on both parties to the contract. That clause further provides that the award may at the instance of either party and without any notice to the other of them be m...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Dass Agrawallah Vs. Budree Dass Sureka and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal657
Woodroffe, J.1. The plaintiff originally sued in his personal capacity. An application was made by the plaintiff at the beginning of the hearing to amend the cause title as administrator of the estate of one Radha Bibee referred to in the pleadings. That application was opposed, but I granted it on grounds, which I stated in a separate judgment, which therefore I need not repeat.2. The suit is brought to declare the plaintiff's title to the premises No. 7 Banstolla street, which were formerly in the possession of the defendant Budree Dass Sureka, and are now vested in the Official Assignee, is the Assignee of Budree Dass Sureka's estate.3. The way that the plaintiff seeks to make a title to these premises is this : He says that Radha Bibee, to whom I have referred, was the widow of Mukunda Prasad Agarwallah and adoptive mother of the plaintiff's father Purusottam Dass. Radha Bibee, on the 12th June 1876, is said to have purchased the premises in suit from one Chatay Lall. On the 12th M...
Tag this Judgment!Kashim Sheik Vs. Prasanna Kumar Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal596
Mitra and Ormond, JJ.1. The chaukidari chakran lands March 22. in Tillage Basudevnagar, otherwise called Uchkaran in estate No. 1153 of the Birbhum Collectorate, were resumed by the Collector of the district under the provisions of Bengal Act VI of 1870, and were on the 6th December 1895 transferred to the proprietors of the estate as provided by Section 50 of the Act. A share of the parent estate was on the 27th June 1898 sold under Act XI of 1859 for arrears of land revenue and the plaintiff claims under the purchase.2. The plea of the defendants is that by the transfer made on the 6th December 1895 the chaukidari chakran lands were separated from the parent estate and did not pass to the plaintiff by the sale of the parent estate.3. The Munsiff, in whose Court the suit was instituted, gave effect to the plea of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge, on appeal, held that notwithstanding the transfer by the Collector the lands continued to be parts of the estate...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Nath Poddar Vs. Rup Lal Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal967
Rampini, J.1. In the suit, out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaration of his right to certain property and to recover possession of it from the defendants. He had executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of the defendants) in which he alleged that in respect of that property he was the benamidar of the defendants, and he now sues to have it established that this deed of relinquishment was a colourable deed, which he executed to save his property from being sold in execution of decrees obtained against him by his creditors. He alleges that his intended fraud was not carried out because he won the appeals he preferred in the suits with his creditors and so he desires to get hack possession of his property. The defendants traverse his allegations. The Lower Appellate Court has given the plaintiff a decrees.2. The defendants appeal on two grounds--(1) that the plaintiff is estopped from alleging the deed of relinquishment to be colourable and (2) that t...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Hazra Vs. Ram Nath Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal630
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The only question on this appeal is whether occupancy rights can be successfully acquired in ghatwali lands. 'There appears to be no very direct authority upon the point. The decision in the case of Mohesh Majhi v. Pran Krishna Mandal (1904) 1 C.L.J. 138 is certainly against that view. I think that upon principle, having regard to the nature of ghatwali lands, the acquisition of occupancy rights in these lands is inconsistent with the incidents of such tenures; and this view gains support from Section 181 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which seems to me to be inconsistent with the view of the acquisition of such rights in ghatwali lands. This conclusion seems to be in accordance with Mr. Justice Mitra's view on the point expressed in the case cited, that any such right is not susceptible of acquisition in ghatwali lands.2. The appeal must therefore be allowed, the decree of the Subordinate Judge set aside and that of the Munsif restored, the effect of w...
Tag this Judgment!Gayanoda Bala Dassee Vs. Butto Kristo Bairagee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1040
Sale, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued as a pauper and obtained a decree, which, directed, amongst other things, that certain property the subject-matter of the suit should he conveyed to her by the defendants and it then proceeds to direct that the taxing officer do certify the amount of Court-fees, which would have been paid by the plaintiff, if she had not been permitted to sue as a pauper and to tax the plaintiffs other costs of suit, and it was further ordered and decreed that the defendant should pay the amount of Court-fees to be certified as aforesaid to the Government Solicitor and to the plaintiff the other costs of suit. It was further declared that the amount of the Court-fees certified as aforesaid, should form a first charge on the house and premises to he conveyed to the plaintiff.2. It appears that the property directed to be conveyed has been so conveyed, and thereafter the plaintiff applied for attachment of certain other premises belonging to the defendants, and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »