Kolkata Court April 1907 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.
Lakhan NaraIn Das Vs. Jainath Panday
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal516
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. I express my opinion upon the point submitted to us, namely, whether the right of a non-occupancy raiyat is heritable, with some diffidence, because I am conscious that many of my colleagues are much better acquainted with such a subject than I am.2. I, however, do not propose to express any opinion upon the question whether or not such right was heritable before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act. No argument was addressed to us upon that point, and the argument rather proceeded upon the basis that it was not heritable, but that it had been made so by that Act.3. Upon the question whether that Act created the right if it did not previously exist, I do not see how we can avoid the strong inference to be drawn from Section 26 of the Act. The legislature by that section has expressly enacted that, 'if a raiyat dies intestate in respect of a right of occupancy, it shall, subject to any custom to the contrary, descend in the same manner as other immoveable pro...
Kishun Pershad Chowdhry Vs. Tipan Pershad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal735
Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ.1. On the 10th March 1897, the first defendant, respondent, executed in favour of the plaintiffs, appellants, a mortgage bond for Rs. 5,000. On the 13th October 1897, he executed two other mortgage bonds in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 3,000 respectively. On the 3rd August 1903, the plaintiffs commenced the action out of which this appeal arises, to enforce these three securities. They joined as parties defendants not only their mortgagor but also his infant son, the second defendant, as the property in question belonged to a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, of which the first defendant and his son were members. The claim was resisted by both the defendants. The Subordinate Judge found upon the evidence, first that the mortgage bonds propounded by the plaintiffs were genuine and for consideration, secondly, that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that there was any legal necessity for the loans or to show that they made any...
Sewdutt Roy Maskara Vs. Nahapiet
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal628
Harington, J.1. The plaintiff claims Rs. 5,250 in respect of three contracts for the purchase and sale of jute. The defendant's case is that the plaintiff, while employed as a broker, really acted as a principal in the transactions, and therefore is debarred from recovering by Section 236 of the Indian. Contract Act.2. The contracts were three in number: one, dated September 17th 1906, contained in a memorandum in the form of a letter addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant in the following terms:-'Please note, we have this day bought for you (1,000) one thousand pucca bales of jute at Rs. 63-12 per bale, for delivery during October 1906, subject to the terms of the Barrabazar Marwari merchants' letter contract. Please confirm and oblige.'3. This was acknowledged and the contract confirmed in a receipt bearing date September 17th 1906. This document refers to two contracts, but it has not been disputed that one of the contracts referred to is the one for 1,000 bales (miscopied in t...
Hakim Lal Vs. Mooshahar Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal999
Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ.1. The circumstances which led to the litigations out of which these two appeals arise, so far as it is necessary to state them for the disposal of the questions raised before us, lie in a narrow compass, and although they were the subject of controversy in the Court below, were not disputed before us. On the 14th December 1900, the plaintiffs respondents commenced an action against Krishna Benode Upadhya, one of the defendants in these suits, for recovery of money due under a usufructuary mortgage. The plaintiffs apprehended that the defendant might alienate his properties before judgment, and made an application for attachment pendente lite. The application, however, proved infructuous, and was rejected on the 12th February 1901. On the 29th November following, the plaintiffs obtained a decree for a large sum of money against the defendant, and subsequently in execution of this decree attached the properties now in suit. Two claims under Section 278 of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›