Kolkata Court January 1909 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.
Mahomed Shah Vs. Official Trustee of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal431,2Ind.Cas.292
Stephen, J.1. The plaintiff in, this case sues to have it declared that he is the absolute owner of a certain Government promissory notes of the value of Rs. 37,500 now in the custody of the Official Trustee.2. The case depends on a deed of the 19th November 1867 by which provision was made for the proper maintenance of the Mysore family.3. The matter has been frequently before this Court, already points of law having been raised both under the present deed and under other deeds with similar effect. The plaintiff by this deed takes a life interest with remainder to certain other persons. It has been held that this is void by Mahomedan Law. It has also been held under this deed that trusts declared after the life interest are void as gifts to unborn persons. In accordance with this decision I give judgment in favour of the plaintiff in terms of prayers 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the plaint. It has been suggested on behalf of the Official Trustee and the appearing defendant that the whole deed is ...
E.H. Stevens, Receiver to the Estate of Babu Gajadhar Parshad Sahu and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.941
1. This is a Rule issued by this Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Mozafferpore dismissing an application for execution of a decree on the ground that it was barred by limitation should not be set aside. The decree of which execution is sought was made on the 27th February 1903. It was alleged by the decree-holder in the Court below that there had been previous applications for execution on the 9th January and the 30th April 1904. No trace, however, of these applications has been found on the record and it must be assumed for our present purpose that the alleged applications were never made. It is not disputed, however, that there was an application for execution on the 10th July 1905. The present application was made on the 4th February 1908. The question which was raised in the Court below and has been argued before us is whether the application of the 10th July...
Maharani Janki Koer Vs. Sham Sivendra Sahi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.958
1. This is a Rule issued by this Court calling upon the Receiver appointed in the course of a mortgage suit as also upon the other parties to the litigation to show cause why he should not be made a party to the proceedings for ascertainment of mesne profits in a suit against the mortgagor. It appears that the petitioner before this Court obtained a decree for recovery of possession of immovable property and for ascertainment of mesne profits against the executant of the mortgage for the enforcement of which a suit has been brought by the mortgagee, in the course of which a Receiver has been appointed to take charge of the mortgaged properties. The execution creditor now seeks to ascertain the mesne profits as against his judgment-debtor and prays that the enquiry may be held in the presence not only of the judgment-debtor but also of the Receiver in charge of the property comprised in the mortgage executed by his judgment-debtor. It is conceded that the mesne profits are in respect of...
Shital Chandra Bairagee Vs. Manik Chandra Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.254
1. On the 14th. July 1901, Manik Chand Hazra, Priya Nath Hazra and Notobar Hazra executed an instalment bond in favour of Kedar Nath Bairagi and Shital Chandra Bairagi. Kedar Nath died in April 1902 and his interest in the debt was inherited by his widow Monoda Sundari, who on the 12th April 1908, executed a deed of transfer of her interest in the debt to Shital Chandra. On the 15th April 1908, Shital Chandra commenced the action out of which the present proceedings arise in the Court of Small Causes at Jessore, for recovery of the money due upon the instalment bond. He joined as defendants Manick, Priya Nath and the representatives of Notobar who had meanwhile died. He also joined as pro forma defendant the widow of Kedar Nath whose interest in the debt he had purchased. The principal defendants resisted the claim on various grounds, amongst which it is sufficient to mention that they denied the reality of the transfer by Manoda Sundari to the plaintiff and contended that the suit cou...
Salt Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal560,2Ind.Cas.591
Holmwood and Ryves, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the best way of dealing with this Rule will be to direct that the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal should reconsider it after re-hearing counsel and examining Mr. Hard-less as a witness. At the same time, as the petitioner has taken the ground that the statements before the police, whether contained in a special diary or in a diary under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, of Tilak Chand Borad and of Tilak Chand, were sent for but no order was passed stating that the Court did not think it expedient in the interests of justice to furnish him with a copy, we think that the learned Sessions Judge should himself send for and consider the statements of these two witnesses and, if he finds that there is anything in them upon which the petitioner would be advantaged by being allowed to cross-examine thereon, he should also resummon those witnesses and submit them for cross-examination after supplying copies of their statemen...
Brojo Nath Pal Vs. Juggeswar, Bagchi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.62
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in an action for recovery of possession of immoveable property. The plaintiffs-respondents founded their claim on two execution sales which took place on the 22nd July 1892, and were confirmed on the 28th October following. The property in dispute, a tank with its banks, belonged admittedly to a person named Hari Mohan, and the sales on which the title of the plaintiffs is founded, took place in execution of a decree against some of his heirs. The defendant resisted the claim principally on the ground that the sales, as well as the decree on which they were based, were vitiated by fraud. They also questioned the extent of the interest which the plaintiffs had acquired by their purchase. At the same time, they instituted under Sections 244 and 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 separate proceeding to set aside the execution sales on the ground of fraud and material irregularity. There proceedings have now been terminated by a...
Jogendra Chundra Roy Vs. Syam Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.168
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, Sham 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-holders, died and on the 1st...
Sukdev Tewari Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.57
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner under Section 205 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside on the ground that the case falls within the rule laid down in the cases of Queen Empress v. Pahuji. 19 B. 195 and Queen Empress v. Paltua 23 A. 53. In the first case cited, A and B were charged with murder. A pleaded guilty and it was held that after such plea he could not be treated as being jointly tried with A.2. In the second case it was held that when several persons are being tried jointly for the same offence, and some of them plead guilty, it is unfair to defer convicting those who have pleaded guilty merely in order that their confessions may be considered against the other accused. 3. In showing cause the Magistrate has pointed out that both these cases may be distinguished from the case before us, inasmuch as the plea of guilty made by Sarat Chandra ...
Amar Chandra Kundu and ors. Vs. Ram Sundar Saha and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.45
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the first Subordinate Judge of Chittagong dated the 17th of September 1906.2. The plaintiffs are the sons of and heirs of Ram Kawal Shoba and Ramballabh Shoba. The pro forma defendants Nos. 5-8 were proprietors of certain properties and as such they mortgaged those properties to the principal defendants on the 2nd of July, 1891, one of the Mahals thus mortgaged was lot No. 3 of the first schedule of the plaint.3. On the 19th of July 1893, a declaration was made by Government under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring a portion of lot No. 3. On the 2nd of April 1894, the Collector took possession of the portion thus acquired by Government. This appeal relates exclusively to that portion.4. On the 25th of November 1895, the mortgagors executed another mortgage bond in respect of some properties in favour of the late Ram Kawal Shoba and Ramballabh Shoba the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs; and again on the 21st of August 1896, they ex...
South British Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Vs. Brojo Nath Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal516
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of Chitty J.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants to recover the sum of Us. 11,630 under a policy of assurance issued by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, on a cargo of jute said by the plaintiff to have been shipped at Ghiur on the 14th September 1906, and which the plaintiff alleges by his plaint was subsequently destroyed by fire on the night of 14th October 1906.3. The policy in question which is dated the 11th October 1906 provides that, subject, to the conditions and warranties herein specified, the defendants assured the cargo consisting of 977 drums of jute of the value of Rs. 11,630 on a voyage from Ghiur to Calcutta against the risks and the perils of the voyage including fire risk.4. The warranties endorsed on the face of the policy so far as material are as follows: 'It is further warranted (2) that the risk of loss or damage by fire is not insured hereby unless...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »