Kolkata Court May 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.
Prabal Chandra Mukerjee Vs. Jadupati Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal724
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The appellant with his two co-sharers brought a rent suit in which they obtained a decree, and in execution of that decree the tenure was put up for sale and was sold. After deducting the costs of the decree-holders and what was due to them under the decree, the balance was paid into Court. It appears that the tenure-holder had mortgaged his tenure. The respondent was the mortgagee, and he brought a suit to enforce his security claiming the fund which is in Court, about Rs. 165. He made the present appellant, one of the landlords, a party to that suit but he made him a party not in his character as landlord but by reason of the case alleged in paragraph 8 of the plaint. It is sufficient, however, that he was not brought before the Court as landlord. That suit came on for hearing and the Munsif, the Subordinate Judge and the learned Judge, from whom this appeal lies, made a decree virtually giving priority to the mortgagee over the present appellant in respect...
Mozaffer Ali Vs. Hedayet Hosain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal584
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The first question we have to decide is whether an appeal lies.2. The appeal is against the leave granted by the District Judge of Murshidabad to the plaintiff (the present respondent) to bring a suit for the purpose of having the accounts taken of a certain religious endowment known as Basanta Ali Khan's estate. The Court went into the matter and was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out, and gave the requisite leave, which it is empowered to do under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863. The question is whether an appeal lies from that order.3. The matter is governed by the section I have already referred to. There is nothing in that section about any appeal; the Act is silent about any appeal. I do not see how there can be any appeal from such an order. It is clearly not a 'decree' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and unless this be so, whence comes any right of appeal? It was held in the case of Kazem Ali v. Azim Ali K...
Gunaputty Roy Agarwalla Vs. Thakurdye Thakurani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal823
Woodroffe, J.1. The plaintiff obtained a decree against one Ram Behary Khettry. The decree was transferred for execution to the Calcutta Small Cause Court and a claim was put in by the first defendant Thakurdye Thakurani. Proceedings were taken, on that claim and proceeded for some time. The plaintiff took two adjournments and apparently between the dates of the adjournments, filed the present suit in this Court, claiming among other reliefs an injunction restraining the defendant, Thakurdye Thakurani, from proceeding with her claim in the Small Cause Court.2. It is certainly an objection to this application that it has been so long delayed after the plaintiff; had himself initiated the proceedings which he now seeks to restrain. The plaintiff himself had the decree transferred for execution to the Small Cause Court which he asked to execute the decree. Upon a claim being made in those execution proceedings he for a considerable time acquiesced in that claim being heard in the Small Ca...
Ranjit Singh Vs. Radha Charan Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal564
Rampini and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by certain putnidars to obtain possession of certain chaukidari chakran lands. These lands have been resumed by Government and made over to the zemindar-defendant, and the putnidars contend that under the terms of their putni lease executed in their favour in Jure, 1854, they are entitled to possession of these lands.2. The lower Courts have given them a decree.3. The defendant appeals. It is urged on his behalf (i) that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act; (ii) that the lands in dispute are not covered by the plaintiffs' putni lease; and (iii) that the lower Court should not have given the plaintiffs a decree without settling what additional putni rent the plaintiffs should pay to the defendant.4. It would seem to us that the second and third of these contentions must fail. We agree with the lower Courts in their interpretation of the plaintiff's putni lease. It conveys to the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›