Kolkata Court January 1909 Judgments
Krishna Chandra Mandal Vs. Jakeral Haq and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.71
1. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal, if any appeal lies, is whether the application out of which it arises is barred by time.2. The plaintiffs-respondents brought a suit for redemption about 14 years ago, and the Munsiff, who tried the suit, with a lamentable disregard of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, directed that the plaintiffs should get possession on paying Rs. 240. No time was fixed for the payment, nor was any order made for foreclosure or sale. Nothing further was done and now the plaintiffs produce the money and ask to be put in possession of the property.3. The Munsiff held that the application was barred by time, but this view has not been accepted by the learned District Judge, and the defendants appeal.4. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. It is argued that the order complained of is an order in a suit and not in execution, while to the suggestion that it may be a decree it is answered that the appeal is n...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Nath Mahapatra Vs. Kashi Nath Beg and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.35
Harington, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit claiming declaration of title and possession of certain properties against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in favour of the defendant.2. The property in question was sold on September 17th 1901 in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and was bought by the appellant, the rent suit having been commenced in June 1900.3. Previous to the bringing of the rent suit, a suit had been brought against the tenant on a mortgage and on May 14th, 1900 a mortgage decree had been made.4. The property was brought to sale under this decree in 1904, and was purchased by the mortgagee (respondent in the present appeal) who obtained possession in August 1904.5. The appellant served, a notice on the respondent under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, annulling the encumbrance,--but the respondent contends that the encumbrance having been merged in a decree of the Court in the mortgage suit the appellant has no power to annul it under...
Tag this Judgment!Manorath Das Vs. Ambica Kanta Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.57
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the decree-holder against an order of the District Judge of Dacca reversing the order of the Subordinate Judge, 'who had allowed execution to proceed. The decree now under execution was obtained against the judgment-debtor so far back as the 26th November 1894, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rungpur by the executors to the Will of one Bhagirath Das. The first execution proceeding was in 1896, and was followed by the second, nearly three years later; to the details of these, it is not necessary to refer for our present purposes. On the 13th November 1899, the decree-holders applied to the Rungpur Court for transfer of the decree to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca for execution. On the 18th January 1900, the usual certificate was transmitted to the Dacca Court under Section 224, C.P.C. In due course, the executors who had been granted letters of administration pendenti monoritate of Manorath Das, the beneficiary under the Will, were...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Kallu Vs. Ramsaran Bhagat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.94
1. The petitioner be are this Court is a manufacturer of combs in the city of Patna. The opposite party is a merchant resident in the same city, who makes it a part of his business to supply traders in Calcutta with combs. On the 28th March 1908, the opposite party took an agreement from the petitioner as well as 28 other manufacturers of combs in the city of Patna, by which the latter agreed to supply him with combs and not to sell the same to any one else. The material portion of the agreement, which further provided that the petitioner would be liable to damages for contravention thereof, was as follows 'where as we, the declarants. Nos. 1 to 29, do hereby agree that whatever combs will be made by us and by our comb-makers the same will be sold to Ramsaran Bhagat and to his heirs during our lifetime and we will not sell the same to any one else. If we do sell to the other men, and if the fact be found true, then the men who will be found guilty of such act, will be bound to pay Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Bagchi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal375
Holmwood and Ryves, JJ.1. Babu Upendra Nath Bagchi, a vakil of the High Court and one of the leading pleaders of the Bhagulpur Bar, was convicted by the learned District Magistrate under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 150. The conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge.2. The circumstances of the case are peculiar and raise a question of very great importance. The facts of the case are practically admitted. Mr. F.A. Savi, who is the Assistant Manager of the Baneli Raj, was called as a witness in a case under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was being contested between the Baneli Raj and the Durbhanga Raj. The appellant, who appeared as a pleader on behalf of the Durbhanga Raj, cross-examined Mr. Savi and, with the object of impeaching his credit, asked him whether the Sessions Judge had disbelieved his evidence in the case of Biranchi Singh. It appears that when the appellant put this question, the...
Tag this Judgment!Jnananjan Banerjee and ors. Vs. Adoremoney Dassee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.93
Stephen, J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of house property in Calcutta as shebaits of a family idol on the ground that the property is debutter and that it is held by the defendant, Adoremoney Dassee, under a title founded on a permanent lease illegally granted by some of the previous shebaits. There is no doubt that they are the sons of one of the grandsons of one Ram Chandra Banerjee by whom it is alleged that the endowment was granted, or by whom the property in: suit was held as debutter. Their pedigree has been satisfactorily proved and if the debutter is proved, they have made out their claim, subject to the case made by the defendant and the law of limitation.2. The facts on which Sreemutty Adore-money, the only contesting defendant, founds her case are as follows: On the 2nd July 1877, a mourasi lease of the premises in question was granted to one Sri Ram' Banerjee by three out of four of the grandsons of Ram Chandra of whom it was alleged that...
Tag this Judgment!Golap Sundari Debi and anr. Vs. Indra Kumar Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.86
1. The litigation out of which the present appeal arises has been prosecuted by the parties during the last five years with varied fortune. The plaintiffs-appellants commenced an action for accounts and recovery of account papers from the defendants-respondents, who are alleged to have been their agents for the management of certain immoveable properties. The claim for account papers was valued at Rs. 50 and that for accounts at Rs. 150. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsiff, and as usual, the plaintiffs stated in their plaint that if the amount due from the defendants was ascertained to be in excess of Rs. 150, Court fees would be paid on such excess amount. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on various grounds to which it is not necessary to refer in detail for our present purpose. The suit was heard ex parte and a preliminary decree for accounts made. The defendants then applied under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 to have the ex pa...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Bagchi Vs. F.A. Savi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.147
1. Babu Upendra Nath Bagchi, a Vakil of the High Court and one of the leading pleaders of the Bhagalpur Bar, was convicted by the learned District Magistrate under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 150. The conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The circumstances of the case are peculiar and raise a question of very great importance. The facts of the case are practically admitted. Mr. F.A. Savi, who is the assistant manager of the Boneli Raj, was called as a witness in a case under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was being contested between the Boneli Raj and the Darbhanga Raj. The appellant, who appeared as a pleader on behalf of the Darbhanga Raj, cross-examined Mr. Savi, and, with the object of impeaching his credit, asked him whether the Sessions Judge had disbelieved his evidence in the case of Biranchi Singh. It appears that when the appellant put this question, the pleaders on the side...
Tag this Judgment!Durlav Prodhania and anr. Vs. Mahammad Mainaddi Bepari, and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.279
1. In this case, the Subordinate Judge of Tipperah has set aside a sale in execution of a rent decree on the ground that the auction-purchaser is the benamidar of the judgment-debtor. The auction-purchaser appeals.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies, the order having been passed under Section 173 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This point appears to be concluded by the authority of the cases cited in Mr. Rampini's Commentary of the Bengal. Tenancy Act, under Section 173.3. It is argued on the authority of the case of Chand Monee Dasya v. Santo Monee Dasya 24 C. 707, that a second appeal lies in this case. We find, however, that in that case the second appellant to the High Court was one of the judgment-debtors, who had asked that the sale should be set aside on the ground that the purchaser was a benamidar of one of his fellow--judgment-debtors. It may well be that Section 234 of the former C.P.C. gave a judgment-debtor or a decree-holder a right of appeal against...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Chandra Roy Vs. Shyam Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal543
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor against an order for execution of a decree obtained by the respondents decree-holders against him on the 16th December 1891 on the Original Side of this Court. The decree was originally in favour of Balkissen Das Shyam Das, and Mathura Das and was for a sum of Rs. 11 044 with interest. On the 2nd January 1892, execution proceedings were instituted, in the course of which a sum of Rs. 824 was realised. On the 30th January 1897, a second application for execution was made and the decree-holder applied for attachment of the interest of the judgment-debtor in a decree passed in another suit. Notice was served on the judgment-debtor and an order for attachment was made. The judgment-debtor under that decree, however, was an insolvent and obtained his final discharge; no further proceedings were therefore, taken by the respondents on their application for execution. Subsequently Balkissen Das, one of the decree-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »