Kolkata Court July 1908 Judgments
Shaharulla Mondal Vs. Bangoo Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.404
1. This is a suit on a mortgage bond which came before the District Judge on appeal. He sets out as briefly as possible that the appellant sued the respondents on a mortgage bond, that the appearing defendant No. 3 contended that the bond was executed by collusion between the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who did not appear, and that no consideration passed. He recites that the lower Court found that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief and then concludes : The point in dispute is a question of fact and I see no reason to differ from the finding of the lower Court. The appeal is dismissed.'2. The question is whether this is a sufficient judgment under Section 574, C. P.C. It may be contended that the points for determination are set out, although this is done in the most meagre possible way, and the decisions thereon; but we cannot find any ground for saying that the reasons for the decision are stated. On the face of it, therefore, the judgment violates the provisions of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Haider Ali Sikdar Vs. Secretary of State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.49
1. This is a second appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Chittagong upholding the decision of the Subordinate Judge and dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs. The facts of the case are sufficiently set out in the judgment of the lower appellate Court but may be briefly summarised as follows: There was a Noabad Taluk known as Taluk Bibi Sparkes which was settled for a term of 30 years in 1836 with two persons named Kalu and Kamar Ali. It then consisted of 103 drones, 8 kamis and 12 gundas of land with a rental or revenue of Rs. 174-0-2. In the rubkari of 1836 a small Taluk of 4 or 5 bighas known as Taraf Bibi Isfag is referred to as measured and settled with other properties in 1150 M.E., 1162 M.E., and 1182 M.E., that is in 1788, 1800, and 1820. There is, however, nothing to show that this was the same taluk and it has not been contended that it is. The case is in this respect on all fours with the Ramoo case; Prosunno Coomar Roy v. The Secretary of State f...
Tag this Judgment!Sitarampur Coal Co. Ld. Vs. T.H. Colley
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.351
Fletcher, J.1. The Plaintiff Company in this suit seek to recover damages against the Defendant who is an inspector of boilers employed by the Government of Bengal in the office of the Commissioners for the Inspection of Steam-boilers under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned. The facts in the main are not in dispute.2. It appears that the Plaintiffs' manager, Mr. Hannaford, in the month of December 1906, approached the Defendant with a view to acquiring two second hand steam-boilers capable of working at 100 lbs. working pressure.3. The Defendant fell in with the proposal of Mr. Hannaford and undertook to find two boilers as required by Mr. Hannaford. There can be no doubt but that Mr. Hannaford, in his correspondence with the Defendant, made it clear to the Defendant that the boilers required by the Plaintiff Company must be capable of working at a minimum pressure of 100 lbs. to the square inch.4. In the month of January, the Defendant wrote to Mr. Hannaford informing him that h...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishore Gir and anr. Vs. Surajdeo Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.442
1. On the 8th August 1893, the defendant Babu Dasrathi Singh executed a simple mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs which contained an unconditional promise to pay the amount covered by the bond with interest on the 30th Bhado 1303, that is to say, the end of the Fusli year which would correspond with 1896. A certain share of a zemindari was hypothecated as collateral security. There was, however, no express covenant by the mortgagor to pay to the mortgagees any amount that should not be recovered by the sale of the mortgaged property. The mortgagees instituted a suit on the mortgage on the 26th February 1899, that is to say, within six years of the expiry of the stipulated period of payment. They made the mortgagor and his son parties to the suit. In it, they asked for a decree for sale of the mortgaged property and if the sale-proceeds of the mortgaged property were insufficient to cover the decretal amount, they asked that other properties of the mortgagor, Dasrathi Singh, might be ...
Tag this Judgment!Poorendra Nath Sen Vs. Hemangini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal75,1Ind.Cas.523
Chitty, J.1. This is a suit by two of the six sons of the late Baikunta Nath Sen against their mother and three brothers. Their mother Srimati Hemangini Dasi is now sued in her capacity as executrix of the will of her husband, in her personal capacity, and also as heiress and legal representative of the sixth son, Jagatpati Sen, who died on the 17th April 1907, after the suit was first instituted. The present suit was first instituted on the 20th August 1906. In consequence of the leave under Clause 12 having been informally granted, it was withdrawn and instituted afresh on 14th February 1908. The object of the suit is to have the will of Baikunta Nath Sen finally construed, and to have the property partitioned among those persons, who are entitled to it. An account is prayed for against Hemangini Dasi and, if necessary, administration and other consequential reliefs.2. The main question for my determination is, whether Hemangini Dasi is entitled on partition not only to the share of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagtu Singh Vs. Raghu Nath Sahai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.571
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the land held by the defendants is zerait or raiyati.2. The Lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the land is zerait and one of the pieces of evidence on which that Court has relied is an admission made in a kabuliat executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs.3. A question has arisen as to whether the admission in the kabuliat is evidence quantum valeat.4. The Lower Appellate Court has discussed the previous cases on this subject. One of these cases is Masudan Singh v. Goodar Nath Pandey 1 C.L.J. 456. In that case the contention was not whether the admission was admissible as evidence but whether such admission operated as an estoppel. The learned Judges expressed a doubt on the question. But we are of opinion that no admission operates as an estoppel except under very peculiar circumstances. An admission is evidence though it may or may not be a strong piece of evidence. The learned Judges were, however, undo...
Tag this Judgment!Janki Dobey Vs. Kirtarath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.316
1. This is an appeal in a suit for rent. Two questions were raised in the Court below: First, that the plaintiffs ought to have withdrawn the amount deposited in Court; and, secondly, the entry in the partition paper which showed the amount of rent payable by the defendant was inadmissible.2. The admissibility of the batwara papers as evidence of the rent payable by the defendants cannot be doubted. The partition was effected under Act V (B.C.) of 1897. Under Section 44 of the Act a partition Deputy Collector has the power of a Survey Officer under the Bengal Survey Act (Act V of 1875, B.C.) and of a Revenue Officer preparing a record-of-rights under Chap. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The procedure as to the preparation of the rent roll and the publication thereof is laid down in the following sections. Sections 46 and 47 lay down almost the same rules as are laid down under Sections 103 and 103-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Section 48 treats of the local publication of the record and f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›