Kolkata Court June 1908 Judgments

Satish Chandra Mukherjee Vs. Porter

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal226

R.F. Rampini, C.J., and Ryves, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of the Additional District Judge of Alipore setting aside a sale in execution of a decree under the provisions of Sections 244 and 311 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment-debtor in his application stated that there had been no attachment of the property sold, that the decree-holder fraudulently and dishonestly caused the suppression of the service of the sale-proclamation on the property sold and that no sale-proclamation was ever served on the property and that the decree; holder, who was the auction-purchaser, with fraudulent intention, under-estimated the value of the property and purposely abstained, with a view to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner and wrongful gain to himself, from mentioning the share of the petitioner in the property sold. These are the only allegations of fraud. The petitioner, however, went on to say that 'On account of non-publication of the sale, there were no bona fide bidders ...

Satish Chandra Mukerji Vs. Colonel A.R. Porter

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.158

1. This appeal arises out of an order of the Additional District Judge of Alipur setting aside a sale in execution of a decree under the provisions of Sections 244 and 311 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment-debtor in his application stated that there had been no attachment of the property sold, that the decree-holder fraudulently and dishonestly caused the suppression of the service of the sale-proclamation on the property sold and that no sale-proclamation was ever served on the property and that the decree-holder, who was the auction-purchaser, with fraudulent intention, under-estimated the value of the property and purposely abstained, with a view to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner and wrongful gain to himself, from mentioning the share of the petitioner in the property sold. These are the only allegations of fraud. The petitioner, however, went on to say that on account of non-publication of the sale, there were no bona fide bidders at all and although your petitioner'...

Jyoti Prokash Nandi Vs. Jhowmull Johurry

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal134

Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants to recover damages for a conspiracy in forming a combination of all intending bidders to avoid all competition at an auction of certain jewellery held at Burdwan on the 9th April 1907.2. The plaint alleges that the combination was 'illegal and fraudulent,' 'an artifice' and so forth.3. The question has first been argued before me whether or not the plaint discloses a cause of action.4. Now it is an acknowledged rule of pleading that allegations of fraud must be specific.5. 'With regard to fraud if there be any principle which is perfectly well settled it is that general allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud, of which any Court ought to take notice.' See Wallingford v. Mutual Society (1880) L.R. 5 A.C. 685 697.6. The present case is really governed by the decision of the Judicial Committee in Gunga Narain Gupta v. Tiluckr...

Lala Jyotiprokas Nandi and ors. Vs. Jhowmull Johury and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants to recover damages for a conspiracy in forming a combination of all intending bidders to avoid all competition at an auction of certain jewellery held at Burdwan on the 9th April 1907.2. The plaint alleges that the combination was 'illegal and fraudulent,' 'an artifice' and so forth.3. The question has first been argued before me whether or not the plaint discloses a cause of action.4. Now it is an acknowledged rule of pleading that allegations of fraud must be specific.5. With regard to fraud if there be any principle which is perfectly well-settled it is that general allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud, of which any Court ought to take notice.' See Wallingford v. Mutual Society L.R. 5 A.C. 635, 687.6. The present case is really governed by the decision of the Judicial Committee in Gunga Narain Gupta v. Tiluckram Chou...

Brahamdeo NaraIn Singh Vs. Ramdown Singh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.125

1. This is an appeal in an action for a declaration that the decree obtained by the defendants first party against the defendants second party for arrears of rent is fraudulent and inoperative as against the plaintiff and for recovery of the sum of money paid by the plaintiff for satisfaction of the said decree. The plaintiff said that he was compelled to pay the amount as his mortgage right, which he had obtained by assignment from the third party defendants, would have been jeopardized by the sale for arrears.2. The lower Courts have held that the annual rental of the holding was Rs. 22, whereas in the rent suit the claim was at the rate of Rs. 60 and that no arrears were due and still the first party defendants had sued the second party defendants and obtained a decree. The lower Courts have accordingly found that the decree was fraudulent and was intended to defeat the right which the plaintiff had obtained by assignment from the defendants third party.3. Two questions have been ar...

Baishnab Charan Laha Vs. Basunta Kumar PaIn and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.68

1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was brought for setting aside a decree for foreclosure.2. The facts are that defendant No. 2 was the mortgagor and defendant No. 3, the mortgagee, who sold his mortgage rights to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 brought a foreclosure suit No. 25 of 1905. But it was compromised between him and defendant No. 2. The petition of compromise was filed on the 21st February, 1905, and under its terms defendant No. 2 was to pay Rs. 165 and costs in full satisfaction of the claim within six months from the 21st February, 1905,failing, which defendant No. 2 would be barred for ever from redeeming the mortgaged property. The defendant No. 2 sold his rights to the plaintiffs. On the 14th August, 1905, the plaintiffs made an application for depositing the decretal amount in Court and then he came to know that the decree had been made absolute a few days after the expiration of three months from the date of decree and the application was rejected. The plainti...

Raja Promoda Nath Vs. Kinoo Mollah and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.495

Rampini, C.J.1. These two Appeals Nos. 2001 and 2125 of 1906 are appeals against the decision of Mr. K.N. Roy, District Judge of Jessore, dated the 30th July 1906, in which he disposed of two appeals in two analogous suits. The first suit, to which Appeal No. 2001 relates was a suit brought by Raja Promoda Nath Roy for arrears of rent due under a qabuliyat, dated the 29th Kartik 1302, executed in his favour by the 6 defendants, who are the sons and widows or one are Farajuddin Mollah deceased. The other Appeal No. 2125 relates to a suit brought by Abdul Rashid, one of the minor sons of Farajuddin Mollah through his next friend Basir Mollah for a declaration that the qabuliyat of 1302 is not binding on him, that it was extorted by false intimidation, force, fraud and collusion, and that a decree obtained by the Raja Promoda Nath Roy in 1901 in the Court of the Munsif of Narail on the basis of this qabuliyat is wholly void. To this suit, the minor plaintiff Abdul Rashid made the Raja Pro...

Krista Chandra Ghose Vs. Krista Sakha Ghose

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1907)ILR36Cal52

Woodroffe, J.1. The Advocate-General appears on behalf of the lessee Rajah Benoy Krista Deb, to whom the Receiver has leased the property, the subject of this application, and takes a preliminary objection that this application cannot be entertained and that the lease having been already executed, no summary order can be passed such as is asked for here. On the other hand, 'reliance is placed upon cases, in which the parties were allowed to appear pro interesse suo; but these cases do not apply, because there the question arose on the application of third parties aggrieved by the Court's action through its Receiver, and the Court grants such an application by reason of the control it necessarily has over its Receiver's action. This is not a case of that kind. I. am not asked in this matter to control the action of the Receiver, because the Receiver has already done that which is complained of and has conveyed the property into the hands of the lessee, a third party, to whom the Receive...

Surja Prosad Thakur Vs. Rajmohan Topedar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.92

Doss, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to recover possession of 33 bighas odd of land in Mouzah Nathur Kona as appertaining to taluk Sarapdi Khan. The plaintiff is the owner of 5 annas 6 gundas 2 karas 2 krants share in the taluk, and seeks to recover possession of that share in the 33 bighas odd. In 1885 Brojo Mohun Biswas, father of Nobin Chunder Biswas, was the owner of taluk Anandiram Biswas and of certain shares in taluk Sarapdi Khan. On the 2nd of Bhadro 1292, corresponding to the 17th of August 1885, Brojo Mohun Biswas mortgaged taluk Anandiram Biswas and another property to the ancestors of the defendants. More than two years biter the mortgage, that is in December 1887, Ram Sankar Bhaduri, who is one of the co-sharers in taluk Sarapdi Khan, brought a suit for partition of that taluk against the present plaintiff, and Nobin Chunder Biswas, who at that time was the owner of 6 annas 13 gundas 1 kara 1 krant share of that taluk and also against the owner of the re...

Tarakishore Chowdhury Vs. NabIn Chandra Karmokar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.53

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the purchaser at a revenue sale to eject the defendants from the lands held by them. The area of the land in dispute in this suit is about 7 cot inks 7 dhurs and 7 powas. The defendants have been found by the lower Appellate Court to hold 3 cottahs and 7 dhurs as a lakheraj tenure from a time before the Permanent Settlement. It has, therefore, held that the plaintiff is not entitled to eject them. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, has stated that the claim for khas possession by the plaintiff and for the ejectment of defendants is dismissed.2. The plaintiff appeals and on his behalf it has been argued (1) that as the learned Judge has found that only 3 cottahs 7 dhurs was the area of the defendants' lakheraj tenure, the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a decree for khas possession of the remaining 4 cottahs 7 powas; (2) that the finding of the Subordinate Judge as to the 3 cottahs 7 dhurs being a lakheraj tenure is wrong; (3) tha...