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.
Mohim Chandra Sarkar Vs. Anil Bandhu Adhicary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.66
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises related to a piece of land about 10 cottahs in area within the town of Pabna. This land was leased by the landlord to the predecessor in interest of the defendant by a kabuliat, dated the 29th Magh 1291. The defendant, in which term we include his predecessor in interest, allowed the father of the plaintiff to live on the land, the latter agreeing to work for the defendant as Muktear in the criminal courts and to pay the rent due to the superior landlord. While the father of the plaintiff was in possession of the land under this license he obtained a lease of it from the superior landlord. It is not disputed that the rights conferred by this lease were intermediate between the rights of the superior landlord and those of the defendant, and if the interest of the defendant was that of a tenant-at-will, the father of the plaintiff, after acquiring the second lease, had power to eject him. After the father of the plaintiff died two suits were br...
L.O. Clarke Vs. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal433
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The plaintiff is a zemindar residing in the District of Mymensingh. The defendant is a member of the Indian Civil Service, and, at the date of the transaction in question, was District Magistrate of Mymensingh. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for a trespass alleged to have been committed by the defendant in searching the plaintiff's cutchchery at Jamalpur on the 28th of April 1907. The defendant, in substance, pleads not guilty by Statute and relies upon th6 Statutes to which reference will be made later on.2. The facts appear to be these: For sometime previous to the 28th of April 1907 the state of feeling between the Hindus and Mahomedans at Jamalpur ran very high and there can be no doubt but that for some days the town had been in a condition of very great excitement. On the 28th of April 1907, the date of the search which undoubtedly took place on the afternoon of that day the defendant was at Mymensingh; and in consequence of a telegram, which he...
indra Chand Bothra and ors. and Vs. Ghaneshyam Missir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.52
1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Purnea, dated the 17th July, 1908, rejecting the application of the petitioners for participation in the surplus proceeds of sale of the judgment-debtor's property should not be set aside.2. It appears that on the 2nd April 1906, several holders of decrees for money applied under Section 295, Civil Procedure Code, for rateable distribution of the proceeds of sale which was then going to take place. The sale was actually held on the 4th April 1906. Subsequent to the sale, several other holders of money decrees applied for attachment of the surplus proceeds after satisfaction of the decree in execution of which the property had been sold. The Court below has dismissed the former application on the ground that it is only those decree-holders who have attached the surplus sale proceeds, that are entitled to rateable distribution under Section 295, Civil Procedure Code.3. We are unable to ag...
Brajendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury Vs. M.A. Luffeman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.520
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit by the same plaintiff as in the suit in which judgment has just been delivered L.O. Clarke v. Brajendra Kissore Roy Chaudhry 13 C.W.N. 458; 9 C.L.J. 298; 36 C. 433; 5 M.L.T. 367; 2 Ind. Cas. 436 and it seeks to recover damages against the defendant, who was District Superintendent of Police in the district of Mymensingh, for certain alleged unlawful acts done by him on the 27th and 28th of April 1907. As regards what was done on the 28th of April, it is conceded by the appellant that if the action against Mr. Clarke succeeded, this action as regards the events of that date must fail. The action against Mr. Clarke has succeeded, and we have, therefore, to deal with the incidents of the 27th April only.2. The facts of this part of the case may be dealt with very briefly: It appears that at about nine o'clock in the evening the defendant and Mr. Barneville, the Sub-Divisional Officer, heard a report of a fire arm, and a man told them that a man had b...
Akhoy Kumar Saha and anr. Vs. Nagendra Lal Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.118
1. These are two appeals Nos. 229 and 235 of 1907 on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Nos. 3 and 4 respectively.2. It appears that two applications were made under Section 108, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside an ex parte decree passed against all the defendants. These applications were rejected by the second Subordinate Judge of Chittagong on the 27th May 1907, and the present appeals are against this order.3. The suit by the plaintiff was for recovery of Rs. 5,496-1-3 from the defendants on account of articles supplied to them by the plaintiff's firm. The defendant No. 4 is admittedly a Gudian Gomashta of the firm belonging to the other defendants.4. It appears from the report made by the serving peon that he found defendant No. 4 on the premises where the firm belonging to the other defendants is located and that he tendered the summons and copies of the plaint, but on the 4th defendant's refusal to take them he affixed the summonses and copies of the plaint on the outer door...
Rahim-ud-dIn Munshi Vs. Bhabangara Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.81
1. The suit relates to a chur known as chur Bansa which appears originally to have been an accretion to the village Bansa, situated in estate No. 6 called Dihi Fatehpur. Government surveyed the chur, found that a certain portion fell within estate No. 6 and released it to the proprietors of that estate. The remainder was formed into a separate estate numbered 407, and settled with the then proprietors of the estate No. 6.2. Subsequently various separate accounts were opened in No. 407 and ultimately the residuary or ejmali share of 6 annas odd fell into arrears and was sold under Act XI of 1859. It was purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also obtained a putni of another share of 3 annas odd from the defendants Nos. 8 to 10, who are said to be the maliks of that share. The plaintiff has brought this suit for possession, praying that estate No. 407 may be ascertained, and that when it has been ascertained he may obtain his share in it by partition. Both the courts below have held t...
Chandrabala Debi Vs. Prabodh Chandra Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal422
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. These appeals are directed against two orders of the District Judge of 24-Parganas by which he discharged two orders made by the Munsif setting aside two execution sales held on the 29th for and 30th October 1906, respectively. The circumstances under which these orders were made must be set out in detail in order that our decision may be intelligible.2. It appears that applications were made by the judgment-debtor to set aside these execution sales under Sections 244 and 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, on the ground of fraud and material irregularity. During the pendency of these proceedings the parties negotiated for a compromise, and on the 1st June 1907 an application was made to the Court for an adjournment to enable them to carry it out. In this application it was stated that a proposal for an amicable settlement was in progress, that the decree-holder had agreed to give back the auction-purchased property and that consequently a month's ...
Janoki Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Dinamani Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.152
1. On an application by the defendants under Section 622, C.P.C., a rule was granted to them in the following terms: 'Let a rule issue calling on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the lower Court made under Section 9 of the Specific relief Act, on the 30th May 1908, should not be set aside as being wholly without jurisdiction, the subject-matter in the suit being no longer in existence.'2. It appears that the suit was instituted on the 18th July 1904 and after deplorable delays was disposed of on 30th may 1908. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that the subject matter of the suit was not in existence on the day the judgment was passed, having been washed away, and in support of that contention, Order No. 84 of the order-sheet, dated the 1st June 1908, has been referred to. In that order we find that a certain gentleman was appointed to find out the land decreed by reference to the papers on the record. Then Order No. 86 of the 10th June 1908 show...
Chandanbala Debi Vs. Probodh Chandra Ray Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.338
1. These appeals are directed against two orders of the District Judge of 24 Parganas by which he discharged two orders made by the Mansif setting aside two execution sales held on the 29th March and 30th October 1906, respectively. The circumstances under which these orders were made must be set out in detail in order that our decision may be intelligible.2. It appears that applications were made by the judgment debtor to set aside these execution sales under Sections 244 and 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, on the ground of fraud and material irregularity. During the pendency of these proceedings the parties negotiated for a compromise, and on the 1st June 1907 an application was made to the Court for an adjournment to enable them to carry it out. In this application it was stated that a proposal for an amicable settlement was in progress, that the decree-holder had agreed to give back the auction-purchased property and that consequently a month's time was necessary. The C...
Chandra Kumar Majhi Vs. Sandhyamani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal418
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order made under Section 371 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 read with Section 582, refusing to set aside an order of dismissal of an appeal before the Subordinate Judge of Barisal.2. The circumstances under which the order came to be made may be briefly stated. The plaintiffs respondents instituted a suit for rent against three persons, Sridam Chandra Majhi, Bashiram Majhi and Banamali Majhi. In the Court of first instance the plaintiffs succeeded, whereupon Bashiram and Banamali, two of the defendants, preferred an appeal to the District Judge of Barisal. Upon the hearing of the appeal, the case was decided against the appellants. Shortly after this, one of the appellants, Bashiram died; the remaining appellant Banamali then preferred a second appeal to this Court. This second appeal was heard on the 13th June 1906, with the result that at the instance of the sole appellant the entire decree of the Court below was set ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »