Kolkata Court August 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.
Amir Chand Vs. Bukshi Sheo Pershad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal13
Rampini and Mookerjke, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Arrah in a case relating to the execution of a mortgage--decree. The decree was obtained on the 29th March 1888, and amended on the 11th August 1888.2. The present is the fourth application for execution. It was made on the 25th April 1904. The execution of the decree is resisted by the successors in interest of Fakir Chand, a puisne mortgagee, who was made a party in the suit, in which the mortgagee Ram Newaz obtained his decree.3. Execution is sought for against four properties, viz.--(1) Amrai Bikrampore, (2) Chamarpore, (3) Baruha No. 1273, and (4) Ekrasi and three other villages.4. The Subordinate Judge has allowed execution to proceed against half of the first and against the second and fourth of these properties. He has directed Baruha No. 1273 to be sold, and the proceeds applied to the satisfaction both of the decree--holder's mortgage as well as of an existing mortgage debt of Faki...
Domi Lal Sahu Vs. Roshan Dobay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1278
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The plaintiff is a mortgagee under a mortgage created by a bond dated the 10th February 1886. The present respondent is the purchaser under a money decree of the equity of redemption in the property mortgaged. There is a dispute as to whether or not he was the purchaser of the whole of such property or only of part. The matter is not clear. He purchased in 1891. I should say on the findings that the whole of. the property was not purchased. The due date for the payment of the debt was in May 1889. The mortgagor paid from time to time portions of the principal to the mortgagee, and a payment was made as late as the 26th April 1893. Those payments are endorsed on the bond. The suit was brought on the 14th May 1903. The question is whether the suit is barred as against the present respondent, and this depends upon the construction of Section 20 of the Limitation Act. That section says: 'When part of the principal of a debt is, before the expiration of ...
Giridhari Lal Ray Vs. Dhirendra Kristo Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal427
Rampini, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated 25th July, 1904, passed in a mortgage suit. The facts are these: The plaintiffs allege that on the 16th May, 1900, the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 deposited with them at Calcutta the title-deeds of a certain putni taluk, which had been advertised for sale, took a loan from them of Rs. 15,000 on a promissory note and paid off the arrears of the putni rent and stopped the sale on the 17th idem. The plaintiffs accordingly prayed for a mortgage decree against the property, as well as a personal decree against the defendants, who had executed the promissory note.2. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 7, the Receiver of the property appointed by this Court on the 2nd September 1901, and by the defendant No. 8, in whose favour the defendant No. 7 had on the 11th May 1903 executed a mortgage of the property in question as well as of other property. The Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiffs a personal...
Narendra Nath Barari Vs. Abhoy Charan Chattopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal51
Geidt, J.1. The subject-matter of this litigation is a ditch lying between the homestead of the plaintiffs and the defendants. This ditch has been obstructed by the defendants, and the plaintiffs ask for a declaration that the ditch belongs to them, or in the alternative, that they have acquired a right of easement therein for the passage of their boats.2. The Munsiff, who tried the suit, found that part of the ditch belonged to the plaintiffs and that over the remainder 'they had acquired a right of easement, and he passed a decree in accordance with the findings. The Subordinate Judge on appeal by the defendants considered that the alternative claims made by the plaintiffs were inconsistent, for they could not claim a right of easement over the land in respect of which they alleged that they had a proprietary right. He was of opinion that the suit framed in this way is not maintainable and he accordingly dismissed it.3. The view taken by the Subordinate Judge is in accordance with th...
Mir Sarwarjan Vs. FakharuddIn Mahomed Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal163
Rampini, J.1. This ease has been returned to us by the Full Bench, to which we referred it, to decide on the evidence 'whether this is a case in which specific performance ought to be granted.'2. The Full Bench has laid down for our guidance the principle that 'if a contract is validly entered into on behalf of a minor and there is mutuality in such contract, it may be specifically enforced, but 'each particular case must depend upon its own particular circumstances.'3. Now applying this principle to the contract, which it is now sought to enforce, I would say that in my opinion it should be enforced. We have already considered the evidence and have come to the conclusions (1) that it is a contract validly entered into, and (2) that there is mutuality with regard to it for the agreement made by Mr. Garth with Mir Sarwarjan would seem to be as enforceable against the minors as it is against Mir Sarwarjan.4. Babu Dwarka Nath Chakravarti for the appellant Mir Sarwarjan contends that we ha...
Nabu Sardar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal1
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The questions referred to us are these: (i) Has a District Magistrate power under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the cancellation of a bond to keep the peace executed on an order by a Subordinate Magistrate on any other ground except that the bond is no longer necessary? (ii) Has the case of Barka Chandra Dey v. Janmejoy Dutt (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calc. 948, been correctly decided? In my opinion, the first question ought to be answered in the affirmative and the second in the negative. Section 125 runs thus: 'The Chief Presidency or District Magistrate may at any time, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel any bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour executed under this Chapter by order of any Court in his district not superior to his Court.' In the case of Barka Chandra Dey v. Janmejoy Dutt (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calc. 948, a Division Bench of this Court held that the power under that section can only be exercised by ...
Padmanund Sing Vs. Anant Lal Misser and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal20
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question referred to ua is: whether it is competent to a Coutt to reject a plaint under Section 54, clause (b) of the Civil Procedure Code, after the plaint has been admitted and duly registered. I do not desire to be understood as saying that in no circumstances would it be competent to the Court to reject a plaint after it has once been admitted and duly registered. I pan conceive cases in which such a course might be possible, but I think they would be very exceptional. In the circumstances, however, of this particular case, I am of opinion that the plaint could not and ought not to have been rejected having been once admitted and registered. The facts found by the Referring Court are as follows : ' This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for rent. The plaint, when originally presented on the 23rd June 1902, was insufficiently stamped. The plaintiffs were directed by the Court to piy the dencit Court-fees on or before the 5th July. The ...
Sarat Chandra Roy Vs. Kalaram Malo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal1349
Chunder Madhub Ghose, A.C.J. and Geidt, J.1. The subject-matter of the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, is a fishery, or, rather, the right of fishery in a certain navigable river. The plaintiff is a taluqdar under the zemindar of pergana Hosensahi, and he claims the jalkar right in the fishery called Gorantra, The Munsif, who went very fully into the matter of the plaintiff's right to this jalkar, referred in his judgment to a proceeding of the year 1860, before the then Collector of Mymensingh, in which the plaintiffs' predecessors 'were parties, and in which action seems to hare been taken for the assessment of the revenue upon the Gorantra river; and the Collector, having regard to a certain purwona of the Revenue Court of the 5th Assar 1198, and a sanad of Raja Ram Krishna Roy dated the 27th Bhadra 1198, held that the jalkar of pergana Jainshye was included in the permanent settlement, and, therefore, no further revenue could be assessed upon the river in question. He al...
Emperor Vs. Gopal Barik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal42
Mitra and Ormokd, JJ.1. This is a rule calling upon the Sessions Judge of Cuttack and one Gopal Barik to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge dated the 19th March 1906 setting aside an order for the prosecution of the said Gopal Barik under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Sub divisional Magistrate of Jaipur should not be set aside and why such other order should not be passed by this Court as to it might seem proper.2. Gopal Barik is a boy of 12 years of age and he complained to the police that the original accused Panu Puri had snatched an ornament from his person. The police thereupon, submitted a report in B form, which means that the complaint was false.3. On the 24th November last witnesses were examined and the conclusion arrived at is given in these Words: 'The witnesses proved the charge. The accused denied it and adduced evidence of ill-feeling. There is a difference between the Madhupur Raj and the raiyats of Sukdebpur and that is a well-known fac...
Rajendra Lall Agarwalla Vs. Raj Coomari Dabi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal5
Harington, J.1. This suit is brought for the construction of the Will of Bachoo Lall Agarwalla, who died on January 5th 1903, leaving a will dated September 19th, 1902.2. There survived the 'testator his widow Luckhimony (the executrix of his will), a son Rajendra (the present plaintiff), a daughter Raj Coomari Dabi (the defendant No. 1), and her son Narain Das (defendant No. 2).3. The questions, which have been argued, arise on the 12th, 13th and 14th paragraphs of the Will only.4. The 12th paragraph provides for the residence of the Testator's wife and sister in the family dwelling--house and directs that the plaintiff shall forfeit his right of residence therein 'if he in any manner throws any obstacle in the way of this my will being proved in Court or in any way objects to any of the provisions of this my will being carried out.'5. It was argued that by bringing the present suit the plaintiff had forfeited his right of residence. I disagree With this contention--the plaintiff is n...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »