Kolkata Court March 1909 Judgments
Moti Lal Adhikari Vs. Ramdoyal Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.645
Sharfuddin, J.1. The facts that give rise to the present appeal are that there are two plots of land which belonged to the ancestors (father and paternal uncle) of defendant No. 1, but were purchased by the plaintiff in execution of a decree against them obtained by him. This purchase was admittedly made in the name of defendant No. 2, Ram Tome Das. The plaintiff purchased the land on the 14th of January 1895, obtained a sale certificate and got delivery from Court on the 26th of August 1895. It is not clear whether possession was given to him through Ram Tome Das or to him directly. It is, however, alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that the judgment-debtor continued in possession and defendant No. 1, his only heir (his brother's son), did not give up possession of the land, which necessitated the bringing of the present suit.2. Defendant No. 1, on the other hand, denies the plaintiff's purchase and his title to the land. The purchase was admittedly made in the name of defendant No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Janakdhari Lal Vs. GossaIn Lal Bhaya Gaywal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal107
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The subject-matter of the litigation out of which the present appeal arises is Mouza Raghunathpur in the District of Gaya. The plaintiff respondent commenced the action for declaration that the sale of the Mouza held by the Collector under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1895, is a nullity, and for recovery of possession of the property from the purchaser. It appears that on the 26th July 1905 the Collector made a certificate for recovery of Rs. 15-1. as arrears of road-cess for the June kist of that year. The plaintiff deposited in the Treasury two days later the entire amount due. This fact, however, was overlooked, and a notice under Section 10 of the Public Demands Recovery Act of 1895 was served on the 27th August on the basis of the certificate previously made. The property, which is now valued at Rs. 6,000, was sold on the 18th December following, and was purchased by Sheo Sahai Lal for Rs. 100. The sale was confirmed on the 20th February 1906, and...
Tag this Judgment!Jaraomull (Jarawarmull) Marwari Vs. Mohadev Prosad Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.724
1. The plaintiffs appellants are tradesmen in the town of Muzaffarpore and are dealers in cloth, gold, pearls, jewellery and other articles. The defendant is a zamindar resident in the same place and is admittedly a person of position and considerable income. The plaintiffs commenced this action for recovery of approximately Rs. 2,300 from the defendant for goods supplied during a period of more than two years from the 14th January 1902 to 18th October 1904. The defendant who at the time of the institution of the suit was an infant under the guardianship of a certificated guardian, resisted the claim substantially on two grounds, namely, first, that the transactions mentioned in the plaint were entirely fictitious, and, secondly, that as at the date of the alleged transactions, he was an infant, he was not liable to pay for the goods. The Courts below have found concurrently upon the first question in favour of the plaintiffs, and have held upon the evidence that the purchases were mad...
Tag this Judgment!Janakdhari Lal Vs. Mohant GossaIn Lal Bhaya Gaywal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.871
1. The subject matter of the litigation out of which the present appeal arises is Mauzah Raghunathpur in the District of Gya. The plaintiff respondent commenced the action for declaration that the sale of the Mauzah held by the Collector under the Public Demands Recovery Act 1895, is a nullity, and for recovery of possession of the property from the purchaser. It appears that on the 26th July 1905, the Collector made a certificate for recovery of Its. 15 anna 1 as arrears of Road Cess for the June last of that year.2. The plaintiff deposited in the Treasury two days later the entire amount due. This fact, however, was overlooked, and a notice under Section 10 of the Public Demands Recovery Act of 1895 was served on the 27th August on the basis of the certificate previously made. The property, which is now valued at Rs. 6,000 was sold on the 18th December following, and was purchased by Sheo Sahai Lal for Rs. 100. The sale was confirmed on the 20th February 1906, and the purchaser on th...
Tag this Judgment!Radhika Mohun Ghose and ors. Vs. Brojendra Kumar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.61
1. The only question which, has been discussed in this appeal is. whether the respondent, who is a mortgage decree-holder, is entitled to interest at the rate stipulated in the mortgage bond up to the date of actual payment or up to the date fixed for payment under sections 86 and 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. The judgment-debtor objected that the decree-holder was only entitled to interest at the stipulated rate up to the fixed date. This objection was disallowed by the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh and the judgment-debtor appeals.2. It is now prefectly well-settled that, in mortgage decrees, although interest at the stipulated rate should ordinarily be allowed up to the date fixed for payment yet, if the Courts think fit, it has power to decree that rate of interest up to the actual realisation. The only question that really arises in this case is whether, as a matter of fact, the Subordinate Judge did decree interest at the stipulated rate up to the date fixed for payment or...
Tag this Judgment!Jagon Ram Marwari Vs. Mahadeo Prosad Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal768
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The plaintiffs, appellants, are tradesmen in the town of Mozaffarpur and are dealers in cloth, gold, pearls, jewellery and other articles. The defendant is a zemindar resident in the same place and is admittedly a person of position and considerable income. The plaintiffs commenced this action for recovery of approximately Us. 2,300 from the defendant, for goods supplied during a period of more than two years from the 14th January 1902 to 18th October 1904. The defendant, who at the time of the institution of the suit was an infant under the guardianship of a certificated guardian, resisted the claim substantially on two grounds, namely, first, that the transactions mentioned in the plaint were entirely fictitious, and secondly, that as at the dates of the alleged transactions, he was an infant, he was not liable to pay for the goods. The Courts below have found concurrently upon the first question in favour of the plaintiffs, and have held upon the eviden...
Tag this Judgment!Bipul Chundra Gupta Vs. Hazi Nasib Ali Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.655
1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Bipul Chundra Gupta against one Nasib Ali and 14 others, for some of whom their legal representatives were afterwards substituted.2. It appear's that Nasib Ali, defendant No. 1, obtained a license for catching 'wild elephants in the Lushi Hills District in 1901 from the Superintendent of that district and organized a khedda in which enterprise a number of people including the plaintiff joined him as shariks.3. A document was executed on the 17th Agra ban 1308 between Nasib Ali, defendant No. 1, as first party and 13 others (one of whom is the plaintiff himself) as second party. This document related to the business of the khedda, its management and the division of profits among the shariks.4. It appears that one of the shariks named Nawsheneeab did not contribute towards the business and so was not treated as a sharik at all and was replaced by one Abdul Ali, defendant No. 15. Several persons subsequently purchased shares from s...
Tag this Judgment!Bechu Singh and anr. Vs. Bichharam Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.677
1. This is an appeal on behalf of some of the defendants in a mortgage suit described as the judgment-debtors, against an order absolute for sale made under section. 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. So far back as 1897, the mortgagees sued to enforce the securities executed in their favour on the 6th July and 5th September 1893. The Court of first instance made the usual mortgage decree on the 25th November 1897. An appeal was then preferred to this Court and during the pendency of the appeal the plaintiffs and defendants settled the matters in controversy between them. On application to this Court, the decree of the Court of first instance was discharged, and a fresh decree was drawn up in accordance with the terms of the compromise, under which the appellants mortgagors agreed to pay Rs. 12,151 with interest, in several instalments. The compromise further provided that in case of non-payment of any two consecutive instalments, the mortgagees would be entitled to realise the entire...
Tag this Judgment!Tangor Majhi and ors. Vs. Jaladhar Deari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.691
1. We remanded this case to the lower appellate Court for a finding whether the suit of Panchanan (No. 236 of 1902) was collusive and whether the decree in that suit was obtained by collusion and in fraud of the rights of the plaintiffs in this suit. The finding of the lower appellate Court to both questions is in the negative. We must in second appeal accept that finding, and it makes no difference that that finding has been arrived at by the lower appellate Court on a remand from this Court. That does not, as the learned pleader for the plaintiffs suggested, make it an appeal from an original order so far as that finding is concerned.2. Accepting that finding it is obvious that the plaintiff's suit cannot succeed as regards Panchanan's share, viz., one-quarter of the two annas of the jalkar. The learned pleader for the appellants raised the contention that the decree in Panchanan's suit affected the rights of all the four brothers; that the decree only could be looked at and that the...
Tag this Judgment!Kunja Behary Shaha and ors. Vs. Matu Bibi and ors. and Mesan Bibi and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.661
1. These two appeals are preferred by the plaintiffs in two suits on mortgage bonds. In each of the two mortgage bonds two jamas were included. The plaintiffs were given decrees by both the lower Courts against the mortgagors, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for the amount of the mortgage debt; but their suits, so far as they claimed to have their mortgage lien declared, were dismissed. They have preferred these second appeals and four questions have been raised by the learned Vakil for the appellants. The first point is that the question of transferability was not one which could be gone into in a mortgage suit and that it certainly could not have been taken by defendant No. 3 who was not only the purchaser of one of the jamas in each suit but also the 16 annas landlord. In support of his contention the learned pleader quoted the case of Jaggeswar Dutt v. Bhuban Mohan Mitra 33 C. 425. But that was a totally different case in its facts from the present one and has no bearing whatever upon it. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »