Kolkata Court February 1909 Judgments
Mohabir Saran and ors. Vs. Lala Baldeo Sahai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.205
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action for recovery of possession of property, moveable and immoveable, which according to the plaintiff respondent belonged at one time to a man named. Sham Lal. The plaintiff alleged that he himself and another man, by name Raghu Nath Sahoy, were equally entitled to take by inheritance the properties left by Sham Lal. In the plaint he farther stated that Raghu Nath had not been heard of for upwards of 12 years and, consequently, could not be made a party to the suit. The Court of First Instance found as a fact that of the properties claimed by the plaintiff the garden did, at no time, form part of the estate of Sham Lal and that there was no evidence to show, as regards the moveables, that any of the defendants was in possession of any portion of them. As regards the kasht land and the dwelling house, the Court of First Instance found that they formed part of the estate of Sham Lal and that the plaintiff was consequently entitled...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Mohan Adhikary Vs. Kashinath Roy Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal615
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. As regards this appeal, two questions arise: first, whether there was an easement acquired by the plaintiffs in this suit to hold something in the nature of a musical festival once or twice a year on the plot of ground which is the subject of dispute; and, secondly, whether the plaintiffs acquired a right of way to carry their idols over this piece of land. As regards the first point, I think no such easement can properly exist: it cannot exist as an easement. There may have been a custom--a custom entitling them to hold a 'kirtan,' a sort of religious concert on the piece of land. But that is not the case set up. We do not think there can properly be what is known as an easement, such as the plaintiffs claim. This appeal, therefore, succeeds on this point. As regards the other question, the Court below seems to have thought that it was established that the plaintiffs had been exercising a right of way over the plot of ground for the purpose of carrying idols...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Jew Thakur and ors. Vs. Radha Kanta Thakurji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.108
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. As regards the first appeal, upon the question of adverse possession, we do not think there is sufficient material upon the findings of fact to justify the conclusion that there was any possession so adverse to the plaintiffs as to prevent them from recovering the strip of land in question. That appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.2. As regards the second appeal (No. 2483), two questions arise:First, whether there was an easement acquired by the plaintiffs in this suit to hold something in the nature of a musical festival once or twice a year on the plot of ground which is the subject of dispute; and, secondly, whether the plaintiffs acquired a right of way to carry their idols over this piece of land. As regards the first point, I think no such easement can properly exist--it cannot exist as an easement. There may have been a custom entitling them to hold a 'Kirtan,' a sort of religious concert, on the piece of land. But that is not the case set up....
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Naskar and ors. Vs. Gadadhar Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.110
Brett, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure for establishment of their right of way over the land of the defendant and for a declaration that the defendant had no light to obstruct the right which was a public right of way over his land. It was also alleged that, by that obstruction, damage had been caused to the public in general and to the plaintiffs in particular. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiffs had proved their case, whether they brought it on their own behalf or under the provisions of Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of a certain section of the community, and gave them a decree for the reliefs sought. On appeal the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit without going into the merits holding, in the first instance, that the plaintiffs, in their individual capacity, were not entitled to maintain the suit, as they had failed to prove any special...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Khayar Abdul Haque Chowdhry Vs. ReazuddIn Ahmad Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.341
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Noakhali, dated the 17th February 1908.2. The facts of the case are that the decree-holder, who is the appellant before us, after obtaining a mortgage decree, took out execution of that decree on the 28th April, 1904. The mortgaged property was sold and the execution, proceedings above referred to were, therefore, struck off.3. In the month of February 1906, the judgment-debtor applied to the executing Court to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud, under Section 244 of the old Civil Procedure Code. The Munsiff rejected the application but the sale was set aside by the appellate Court on the 18th May 1907, on the ground of the fraud of the decree-holder.4. On the 26th September 1907, the decree-holder put in his present application for execution. He was opposed by the judgment-debtor on the ground, that the application was barred by limitation.5. The first court disallowed the judgment-debtor's objection and held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chunder Ghose Vs. Lakshman Chunder Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal609
Harington, J.1. This is an action by an attorney to recover his bill of costs. The retainer was given by a number of members of the Sen family. The present defendants are either the persons who gave, or the representatives of the person who gave the retainer.2. Only one defendant appears to contest the plaintiff's claim. He does not deny the retainer and the doing of the work, but says that on January 13th, 1903, he revoked the authority he gave to the attorney, and that he is, therefore, not liable for costs incurred since that date. The claim for costs arising before that date is, he says, barred by limitation. The retainer was given on December 18th, 1901, by Gopal Chunder Sen, Brindabun Chunder Sen, Gocool Chunder Sen and Sreemutty Moonjari Dassee, and the plaintiff acted as attorney for these parties at the hearing before the Court of first instance and in the Court of Appeal.3. On January 13th, 1903, the defendant Gocool wrote to the plaintiff to the effect that his circumstances...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Pal Vs. Hari Mohan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.362
1. This was an application under Section 244 of the former Code in which the judgment-debtor pleaded inter alia, that a certain property, which the decree-holders sought to attach in execution of their decree, was not liable to attachment. The Subordinate Judge of Comillah held that the property was subject to attachment and refused the application and the judgment-debtor appeals.2. The only question that now arises for determination is whether this property, which is a homestead in the Town of Comillah, is saleable property within the meaning of Section 266 of the former Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Subordinate Judge refused the application on two grounds. He held, firstly, that the judgment-debtor was not entitled to deny that the holding was transferable by usage, and secondly that the holding, was transferable under the Transfer of Property Act. As to the first point, the evidence seems to us perfectly clear. The learned Subordinate Judge himself appears to have shrunk from...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chandra Ghose Vs. Lakshman Chunder Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.830
Harington, J.1. This is an action by an attorney to recover his bill of costs. The retainer was given by a number of members of the Sen family. The present defendants are either the persons who gave, or the representatives of the person who gave the retainer.2. Only one defendant appears to contest the plaintiff's claim. He does not deny the retainer and the doing of the work, but says that on January 13th, 1903, he revoked the authority he gave to the attorney, and that he is, therefore, not liable for costs incurred since that date. The claim for costs arising before that date is, he says, barred by limitation. The retainer was given on December 18th, 1901, by Gopal Chunder Sen, Brindabun Chunder Sen, Gocool Chunder Sen and Sreemutty Moonjari Dassee, and the plaintiff acted as attorney for these parties at the hearing before the Court of first instance and in the Court of Appeal.3. On January 13th, 1903, the defendant Gocool wrote to the plaintiff to the effect that his circumstances...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Koer and ors. Vs. Ganga Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.197
1. This is an appeal on behalf of some of the defendants in an action for declaration of title to, and confirmation of, possession of immoveable property. The subject matter of the dispute is a two annas eight pies Kancha share in Mauza Gamharia, which admittedly belonged at one time to a person named Gangadhar Lal. The appellants as well as the respondents claim to have derived title from him and the question is whose title ought to prevail. It appears that on the 25th January 1874, Gangadhar mortgaged the property to one Hira Singh, who took the bond for himself and his brothers. On the 30th July 1883, the right, title and interest of Gangadhar was purchased by Dhurma Singh from whom the respondents have derived title. On the 8th July 1899, the Collector sold the same property, under the Public Demands Recovery Act, in execution of a certificate issued against the heirs of Gangadhar, and the appellants claim title through the purchaser at that sale. Now it is well settled by a series...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Das Baishnab Vs. Kali Sunkar Bajpai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.216
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the District Judge of Sylhet, dated the 2nd of April 1907. It is instituted on behalf of the plaintiffs while the defendants have filed cross-objections but have not pressed them.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that there is an Akhra with a temple dedicated to the idol Jugganath situated in the town of Sylhet. The last Mohunt of this Akhra was one Mukanda Das. He died on the 20th of July 1898 (13th Sravan 1305 B.S.) and on the same date executed a Will, appointing five persons as his executors namely, Kali Sankar Bajpai, Joari Mal, Tushtyal, Manikya Chandra Banikya, Raj Kumar and Krishna Charan Sarma. Under the Will he also appointed Ram Sevak Bairagi and Narayan Brajabasi as pujaris.3. Mukanda Das further empowered the above-named five executors to appoint fresh pujaris, if the two above-named failed to perform the puja properly.4. After the death of Mukanda Das, the executors applied for probate of the Will, and obtained...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »