Kolkata Court February 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.
Biswa Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. Durga Sundari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.260
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the 3rd Subordinate Judge of Mymensing, dated the 25th March 1907. The suit, which has given rise to it, is one for recovery of possession of certain undivided shares in two revenue paying estates, mentioned in the schedules attached to the plaint after declaration of title thereto.2. The plaintiff, Durga Sundari Debya, is the third daughter of one Manik Chandra Biswas, who is said to have died on the 11th January 1874 (Magh 1280). He is said to have made a Will which was registered on 19th January 1874.3. The above Will provided, that on his death all his property should be taken by a son to be adopted by his widow Siva Sundari Debya. It also provided that, in case no such adoption was made, the widow and, after her, his four daughters should take all his properties in equal shares. There were other provisions also in the Will as to how the succession should devolve in case of the death of anyone of the daughters, which have no relevancy to...
Debendra Nath Sen Vs. Mirza Abdul Samed Seroji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.264
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for the enforcement of a mortgage executed in his favour by the first defendant on the 16th September 1899. The properties comprised in the security are three in number and may be briefly described as the Mogulbagan, the Chitpur Road House and the Tangra Road land. In order to determine the relative lights of the parties to the properties in question, it is necessary to set out in detail the various transactions which have taken place with regard to them both before and after the mortgage; These transactions are of a somewhat complicated character; but, so far as it is necessary to describe them for the purpose of disposing the questions raised before us, they may be thus briefly outlined.2. The father of the first defendant, Abdul Karim, died on the 9th January 1897, and left an estate of considerable value, part of which was heavily encumbered. In his lifetime, on the 22nd February 1894, he had executed a mortgage for one L...
Ajodhya Roy Vs. Hardwar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.213
1. The substantial question of law, which calls for decision in this appeal, is one of some nicety and novelty. In 1899, Baburam Sahu, now represented by the respondents, obtained a mortgage decree against one Raja Roy and his three sons Ram Logan Roy, Ramtohal Roy and Deodhary Roy, members of a joint Mitakshara family. All the original judgment-debtors except Deodhari Roy had died before the present execution was taken out. The decree-holder brought on the record all the members of the joint family, amongst whom was the appellant, an infant son of Deodhari. It was objected on behalf of the infant represented by his mother and guardian, Rambati Koer, that he could not be made a party to the execution proceedings, and further that the application as against him was barred by limitation. The learned Munsiff found on the evidence that the appellant was born subsequent to the mortgage-decree and held that as his father Deodhari was still alive, he could not be made a party to the execution...
Mewa Lal Sahu and anr. Vs. Kumerji Jha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.946
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decision of the District Judge in which he has reversed the decision of the Munsif in a suit for recovery of money due for the price of cloths supplied. The plaintiffs in the Court of first instance claimed to recover the sum of Rs. 159-2 as principal and interest, and along with the plaint they produced their ledger to show that the amount in question was due. Later on, in the course of the trial they produced their day-book to corroborate the entries in the ledger, and it was admitted in evidence apparently on the ground that the case was covered by the second paragraph of Section 59 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Munsif then considered the whole of the evidence, oral and documentary, on the record and came to the conclusion that the claim was established. The. defendants appealed to the District Judge and on their behalf it was contended that the day-book ought not to have been received in evidence as it had not been produced with t...
Jogendra Chandra Shaha Chowdhury Vs. Srish Chandra Shaha Chowdhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.10
In this appeal, we are of opinion that the view taken by the lower Courts cannot be maintained. The plaintiff brought a suit for partition against the defendants and claimed that certain lands held by him and the defendants in their entirety should be divided amongst them. The defendants said that they and the plaintiff held some other pieces of land jointly with some other parties and they contended that, in consequence of that fact and the fact that the plaintiff had not included those other lands in his application for partition, the suit must fail. Both the lower Courts have accepted this contention and have dismissed the suit. In our opinion, both the lower Courts are wrong. The plaintiff was certainly entitled to bring a suit for partition of the lands held jointly in their entirety by himself and the defendants and there is no reason why he should be compelled to include in that suit lands held by him jointly with the defendants and other persons. If the defendants think that an...
Biswambhar Mirdha and anr. Vs. Sarup Chandra Gain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.136
1. The only point taken in support of the appeal is that the lower Appellate Court erred in law in holding that the Munsiff 's judgment and decree must be set aside on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to revive the suit on the application of the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who are the appellants in this Court. We have heard the learned Pleader in support of this point and we are of opinion that the point cannot be supported. The original suit was brought in the Munsiff's Court against all the defendants, It was contested only by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and was dismissed. Possibly, if the application for review had then been made to the Munsiff, it would have been in his power to revive the case as against the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, on the ground that they had not been served with notice of the suit. But, after the decision by the Munsiff, the suit went on appeal to the lower Appellate Court. In that Court, the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were made parties respondents, and after th...
Emperor Vs. Gaya Nath Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.286
1. This is a reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the Sessions Judge of Rungpore who has convicted the four accused persons under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the death sentence on the first prisoner Gaya Nath Das and sentences of transportation for life on each of the other three prisoners Matal Das, Shashi Bhusan Das, and Nishi Kanta Chandra. The matter has also come before us on appeal by the accused.2. The Assessors were divided in opinion. One gentleman thought that the deceased Anukul had been murdered, the other Assessor was in favour of the theory that Anukul had died of some disease like apoplexy. The first Assessor gave five weighty reasons for his farther conclusion that the accused were not guilty of the murder of Anukul. These reasons have been examined by the learned Sessions Judge whose judgment is full and exhaustive. We are unable, however, to accept the conclusions at which the learned Sessions Judge has arrived.3. The ...
Purna Chandra Chatterji and ors. Vs. Bejoy Kumar Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.9
1. In support of this appeal two points have been taken; first, that the learned District Judge is in error in his decision on the question of limitation and, secondly, that he is in error in holding that a portion only of the holding has been transferred and that, therefore, the landlord is not entitled to eject the defendants.2. So far as the first point is concerned, we are unable to agree in the decision of the learned Judge, for, we think that, when the whole execution proceedings were set aside after the decree had been set aside, the decision in the claim case which was brought in the course of those proceedings fell with those proceedings. On the second point, however, we are of opinion that sufficient grounds have not been made out for our interference with the decision of the lower Appellate Court. The learned pleader for the appellant admits that only a portion of the holding has been sold; but he says that that portion of the holding is a complete holding within the meaning...
Panchu Mondal Vs. Mohanund Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.139
1. The only point taken in support of this appeal is that the lower Appellate Court erred in not holding that the present suit was liable to dismissal because, under the terms of Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act, the prior mortgagee had not been impleaded as a defendant. We do not think there is any substance in this contention. We agree in the view taken by this Court in the case of Jaggeswar Dutt v. Bhuban Mohan Mitra 33 C. 425; 3 C.L.J. 205 that under the provisions of Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act, a prior mortgagee is not a necessary or even a proper party to a suit brought by a subsequent mortgagee. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tarubala Dasi Vs. Moni Lal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.246
1. The present appeal arises out of an application made under the provisions of Sections 311 and 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale of a property called Bibir Bagan. The grounds on which the application was based were that the property was undervalued in the sale proclamation, that there was a suppression of the service of process and the sale proclamation and that this was done by the decree-holders fraudulently for the purpose of selling the property at an insufficient price. It was contended that the property was sold at only Rs. 10, 276 whereas, in fact, its value was Rs. 60,000 and that, in consequence, the judgment-debtor had suffered substantial loss. Six witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner to prove the allegations on which the application was based. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the evidence of those witnesses was not entitled to reliance. In the first place, he found that the value of the property was not Rs. 60,000, as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »