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.
Umamoyi Dassya and ors. Vs. Raja Janki Ballav Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.248
1. The, appellants in this case are the daughter and daughter's son of one Nil Chandra Shall a who died in. 1881, having made a Will of which the 1st defendant, one Bhairab Chandra Shaha, was appointed executor, and took probate. The suit was brought on a mortgage bond, dated the 12th December, 1903. and executed by Bhairab Shaha, both for plaintiff and as executor of the Will of Nil Shaha. The Subordinate Judge of Rangpur has decreed the suit. The 1st defendant, who contested the suit in the Lower Court, has not appealed. The appellants are the heirs of Nil Shaha who were made parties to the suit at their own request.2. The execution of the bond, for consideration is not denied, but for various reasons it is contended that it is not binding on the heirs of Nil Shaha. Several points were taken by the learned pleader for the appellants, but it will not be necessary to deal with them seriatim, as our decisions on the principal points will conclude the appeal. The first question that aris...
Fazar Banu Vs. Uzir Ali Mian, and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.284
1. This appeal arises out of an application to set aside an execution sale on various grounds'. The only ground, with which we are concerned in this appeal, is that the execution, in the course of which the sale took place, was barred by time. 2. It appears from the judgment of the Munsiff that the application for execution was made on the 1st September 1905. That application appears to have been barred by time, but notice was issued under Section 248 of the former Code. The judgment-debtor apparently did not appear but the application was ultimately refused. Thereafter, another application was filed on the 31st October 1905. Another notice was issued under Section 248, and the heir of the deceased judgment-debtor was brought on the record. On the 9th December, the Munsiff recorded that the notices had been served but that the judgment-debtor had not appeared, and accordingly he directed that attachment and sale proclamation should issue. Subsequently, the sale was held and confirmed i...
Ganesh Ram Pal Vs. Mohesh Ram Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.534
1. This is a rule on the opposite party to show cause why the decree of the lower Court complained of in this petition should not be set aside on the ground that the claim for mesne profits is barred under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that one Mohesh Ram Pal instituted a suit against the petitioner and others in the Court of the First Sudder Munsif of Sylhet for specific performance of a contract to reconvey a plot of land to him by executing a kobala in his favour. The suit was decreed ex parte against the petitioner and others on the 20th November 1905, and it was ordered by the Court that the defendants do reconvey the property in dispute to the plaintiff and register the kobala. One month's time was allowed by the Court for the execution of the kobala. It also appears that after the said decree the plaintiff, Mohesh Ram Pal, did not apply for execution for two years and a-half after the passing of that decree. The plaintiff, Mohesh Ram, again brought a suit...
Laliteshwar Singh Vs. Rameshwar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal481,2Ind.Cas.290
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of the Durbhanga Raj estate, one of great value. The present Maharajah is a brother of the late Maharajah; and the plaintiff's case is that the present Maharajah and the late Maharajah had long been separate in food and worship, and owing to disputes and differences between them, they on or about the 28th of August 1880 became separate in estate and were never thereafter re-united in food, worship or estate. He further alleges that on or about the last-mentioned date the defendant Maharajah for valuable consideration moving from the late Maharajah renounced and relinquished by deed all his claims to any of the properties move-able and immoveable held by Maharajah Moheshwar Singh or which might have been subsequently acquired and added thereto: that the late Maharajah died suddenly on the 17th December 1898 intestate and without having abdicated or assigned the Raj, leaving no issue, natural or adopted, but leaving the plai...
Narayan Chandra Singha and ors. Vs. Basanta Kumari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.252
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that respondent No. 3 died on the 18th December 1905, that an application was made to substitute his legal representatives on the 3rd May 1906, that the substituted respondent died on the 16th May 1906, and that his legal representative was not brought on the record till the 3rd December 1906. The Court below has, however, found that the appellants did not become aware of the death of the substituted respondent within six months from the time of his death. We must consequently overrule the objection that the representative of respondent No. 3 has not been brought on the record within time. It has next been argued that respondent No. 2 died on the 20th December 1906, that on the 11th June 1907 an application for substitution was made in which it was stated that his infant son was his legal representative, that subsequently another application was made in which it was stated that child born was not a bo...
Niladri Mohanti and ors. Vs. Bichitranund Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.257
Brett, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title to, and recovery of possession of, certain lands as Lakhiraj Bajeapti lands, The first Court gave the plaintiffs a decree, but the lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance and has dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The case for the plaintiffs was that the Lakhiraj Bajeapti tenure, a portion of which is the subject of the present suit, was sold in 1900 in execution of a simple money decree, obtained by the defendant No. 9 against the defendant No. 1 and the father of the defendant No. 2, and was purchased by the defendant No. 9 himself. The defendant No. 9 afterwards sold the land in suit, which is a portion of the aforesaid tenure, to the plaintiffs in October 1901. The defendants Nos. 4 to 8, who are the 8 annas co-sharers landlords of the estate, in which the Lakhiraj tenure is situated, brought a suit for arrears of rent against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and, on the 28...
Baroda Prosad Banerji and ors. Vs. Gajendra Nath Banerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.289
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first three defendants in a suit for construction of the last Will of Biswambhor Banerjee, for partition of his estate, for accounts, and for other incidental reliefs. Biswambhor Banerjee died on the 28th of August 1883 and left an estate of considerable value. The relationship between his descendants who are parties to the present litigation is indicated in the following genealogical table. Biswambhor Banerjee, Testator, died 28th August 1883. _________________________________|_________________________ | | |Pitambar died before 1883 Widow, Man- Mohendra d. 1885. | matha. | | | | | | Bantacharan | | d. 1886. | __________|______________ _________|__________ | | | | | | | Nimai d. Bijoy d. Shashee d. Narendra Gajendra | 1904. 1895. W. 1903. W. dead. Plaintiff. | | Khiroda d. Usabati | | 1900. or Usan- | | gini de- | | fendant 9. | |___________________________________ | ____________________________|__________________________ | | | | | | | Surendra Anu...
Girindra Mohan Roy Vs. Khir Narayan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal394
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. This is a Rule granted to the petitioner under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act.2. The facts giving rise to the present Rule are that the petitioner was adopted on the 2nd of July, 1899 (18th of Sravan 1306). His adoptive mother and step-mother were in temporary possession of the estate as Hindu widows with limited rights, which ceased on the date of the petitioner's adoption.3. Along with the estate to which the petitioner succeeded on his adoption there was also an instalment bond executed by the defendant in favour of the two ladies mentioned above.4. The instalment bond above referred to stipulated for payment of the money covered by it in twelve instalments, falling due on the dates mentioned in the bond, the second instalment falling due on the 30th Jaista 1306. There was a further stipulation in the bond to the effect that in the event of default in payment of two consecutive instalments, the creditor would be at liberty to recover th...
Nirbikar Chandra Mukherji Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.78
1. No one appears against this Rule and upon the explanation of the Magistrate of Howrah, it is clear that the proceedings against the petitioner were without jurisdiction. It is not sufficient for the Magistrate of a District to direct a, proceeding to be drawn up by a Deputy Magistrate against a parson residing in another jurisdiction. The law is that no such proceeding shall be taken before any Magistrate other than a Chief Presidency Magistrate or a District Magistrate. If therefore proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary against a petitioner not residing in the District of Howrah, that proceeding must take place and be brought to a conclusion before the District Magistrate himself and before no other Magistrate.2. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the order binding down the petitioner discharged....
Girindra Mohun Roy Chowdhury Vs. Bocha Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.49
1. This is a rule granted to the petitioner under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. The facts giving rise to the present rule are that the petitioner was adopted on the 2nd of July 1899 (18th of Sravan 1306). His adoptive mother and step-mother were in temporary possession of the estate as Hindu widows with limited rights which ceased on the date of the petitioner's adoption.3. Along with the estate to which the petitioner succeeded on his adoption there was also an instalment bond executed by the defendant in favour of the two ladies mentioned above.4. The instalment bond above referred to stipulated for payment of the money covered by it in twelve instalments, falling due on the dates mentioned in the bond, the second instalment falling due on the 30th Jaista 1306. There was a further stipulation in the bond to the effect that in the event of default in payment of two consecutive instalments, the creditor would be at liberty to recover the entire amount due on th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »