Kolkata Court March 1906 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.
Bhabatosh Banerjee Vs. Soleman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal584
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. One Kaliprasanna Banerjee executed a deed of gift, which has been found by both the Lower Courts to be a valid deed of gift, in favour of his wife Jagat Mohini. He died the next day. The deed was subsequently registered at the instance of his widow Jagat Mohini. She then sold the property in question to the defendant. The plaintiff, as the reversionary heir of Kaliprasanna, brings this action to recover possession of the property, and the only question we have to decide is, whether in the circumstances the deed was validly registered.2. It is urged for the appellant that the deed in question is not a 'registered instrument' within the meaning of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 123 runs as follows .---'For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.' If we look at the definition of the term...
Rameswar Singh Vs. Bhubaneshwar Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal837
Mitra and Ormond, JJ.1. One of the estates of the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, was surveyed under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The final publication of the record was made on the 16th December 1901. On the 18th February 1902 the plaintiff applied for the settlement of fair rents on the ground of the prevailing rate being higher than that paid on the ground of the rise of the price of staple food-crops, and on the further ground of increase in the areas of the holdings. The petitions were expressly made under Section 105 of the Act, and it does not appear to us that there is any other section of the Act under which the applications could be made.2. The Settlement Officer held on the 16th November 1902 that the plaintiff was entitled to increase of rents on account of increase in areas. On appeal, however, the Special Judge under the Act has dismissed the applications, he being of opinion that no case was made out for enhancement of rents on any of the grounds state...
Ram Ranjan Chakravarti Vs. Indra NaraIn Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal890
Francis William Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. I think both the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge are right in this case. The only matter that presses upon me in connection with it is a decision of the Allahabad High Court, Shco Prasacl v. Behnri Lal (1902) I.L.R. 25 All. 79--a decision which is entitled to every respect. Unfortunately I am unable to agree in the conclusion of the learned Judges in that case. I agree with them to this extent that the question raised in the present case depends upon the construction of Sections 89 and 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. The application here is for a personal decree under Section 90 of that Act. Apparently, a personal decree can only be obtained, as provided in that section, 'when the net proceeds of any such sale are insufficient to pay the amount due on the mortgage.' The expression 'such sale' evidently refers to a sale under Section 89. Section 89 says that, if payment is not made, the plaintiff may apply to the Court 'for an orde...
imam Ali Vs. Baij Nath Ram Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal613
Mookerjee, J.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 disposal of the questions of law raised before us, lie in a narrow compass and are practically undisputed. The plaintiffs seek to enforce a mortgage security executed in favour of the first plaintiff and his father by the first defendant, on the 5th September 1882. The date fixed for repayment in the bond was the 5th March 1883. Various payments appear to have been made from time to time and it is proved that the last of these payments was made on the 16th January 1891. The present suit was commenced on the 17th December 1902, and the mortgagees joined as defendants not only the mortgagor, but also eight other persons, who had subsequent to the date of the mortgage acquired an interest in the equity of redemption, either as purchasers or as puisne mortgagees. It is necessary to state that the mortgage comprised eight properties, out of whic...
Girish Chunder Nandi Vs. Kedar Nath Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal590
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The question we decide is only as between the present plaintiffs and the present defendants to the suit. It is perhaps hardly necessary to state this. The facts, stated shortly, are these. A mortgage of certain property dated the 11th of September 1882 was given to one Umesh Chandra. Umesh instituted a suit to realize his security, and on the 27th of April 1890 obtained a decree. The property was sold in execution of that decree, and Umesh purchased it on the 1st of December 1890 for Rs. 25. The mortgage-debt amounts to Rs. 350 or thereabouts. On the 14th of August 1901 Umesh sold the property to the present plaintiffs for Rs. 99. He did not make defendant No. 1 a party to his mortgage suit, because he was not aware that that defendant had become second mortgagee. The second mortgage to defendant No. 1 was created on the 25th of August 1889. On the 22nd of March 1900, defendant No. 1 obtained a decree in his suit, under which decree the property was...
Shib Prosad Chaudhuri Vs. Yakai Pali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal601
Mitra and Ormond, JJ.1. These are appeals in suits instituted by the same plaintiffs against different defendants for recovery of sums of money payable on account of rents of agricultural lands held by the defendants and of fishery rents with respect to a. julkar.2. The defendants were long in occupation of the agricultural holdings. It appears from the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court that they claimed the right of fishing in a certain bed called Sukna bed as a right appurtenant to their holdings, that the landlords, who are the assignors of the plaintiffs, attempted to lease out the beel to a stranger of the name of Debi Charan Sircar, and in order to avoid disputes with such a lessee of the beel, the defendants in each of these cases agreed to pay fishery rents in addition to the rents of their agricultural holdings to prevent the landlords losing fishery rent. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants agreed to pay one anna for each rupee of rents of the agricultural h...
Sasi Bhusan Pal Vs. Chandra Peshkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal861
Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Nadia, dated the 25th June 1904.2. The facts of the case are these. The plaintiff sued for a declaration of his mortgage lien over the property belonging to the defendant No. 2 and also for the issue of a temporary injunction to restrain the auction sale of that property at the instance of the defendant No. 1. The defendant No 2 (the mortgagor) admitted the bond. The defendant No. 1 contended that the bond was a fraudulent and collusive deed.3. The Munsif found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the mortgage bond was not proved according to law.4. The Subordinate Judge remanded the case to the Munsif for examination of the witness Misser Sheikh, and then after the evidence of this witness had been recorded, he proceeded to deal with the case. He found that the mortgage bond, had been properly attested according to law and therefore decreed the plaintiff's appeal...
Ram Bishen Raut Vs. Rajaram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal832
Harington and Pratt, JJ.1. This is an appeal brought by the tenant-defendants against the judgment in a proceeding which was taken by the zemindars under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the purpose of settling a fair and equitable rent of the lands held by the defendant.2. It has been stated that the plaintiff purchased the mahal, in which the lands lie, on the 5th July 1897, at a sale held for years of revenue. Finding a difficulty in getting rents, he applied under Section 163A of the Bengal Tenancy Act for a cadastral survey, and accordingly a record-of-rights was made and published in September 1903. After that, the record containing a statement that the rents had not been fixed, he took proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the purpose of getting the rents payable for the lands fixed. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent to the hearing of this appeal. The respondent says that no appeal lies, because under Section 109A(3) of the B...
Probat Chandra Gangapadhya Vs. Chirag Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal607
Mitra and Ormond, JJ.1. On the 28th Bhadra 1309 the plaintiff, who is the respondent before us, executed a kabuliat in favour of the defendants, the appellants before us, agreeing to pay rent for certain plots of land at the rate of Rs. 39-10. In 1883 the plaintiff or his predecessor in title had executed a kabuliat in favour of the same defendants for the same lands agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 24-4. The enhancement was, therefore, more than 2 annas in the rupee and contravened the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The plaintiff asked in the suit for a declaration that the kabuliat executed by him was void, he having executed it under coercion and undue influence, and it having contravened the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. The Lower Appellate Court, without going into the question of coercion and undue influence, has decreed the suit, holding that the rent enhanced was more than two annas in the rupee a...
Abdul Majid Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1256
Brett, J.1. The petitioner Abdul Majid was tried with four others before the Deputy Magistrate of Tipperah in one trial on charges under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. All were convicted. Abdul Majid, Syad Ali and Safar Ali were sentenced under Section 411 to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months each, Abdul Aziz was sentenced under the same section to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment, and the fifth accused Ummedannessa, who was in a critical state of health, was sentenced under the same section to a fine of Rs. 2, or, in default, to imprisonment until the rising of the Court.2. On the 4th June 1905 a burglary was committed in the house of Chandra Kumar Dutt in the town of Comilla and property worth Rs. 600 was stolen. Information was given to the police and, after enquiry had been made and no clue obtained to the offenders, the case was reported as true, the offenders being not detected.3. The complainant then proceeded to make enquiry himself through his servants and received inf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›