Kolkata Court March 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.
Dwarika Nath Chatterji and anr. Vs. Jiban Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.657
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two brother's Dwarika Nath Chatterjee and Basanta Kumar Chatterjee for a decree that a certain oshut nimhowla pattah set up and filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 8 might be cancelled, for costs, and for further other relief. The defendants Nos. 1 to 8 pleaded that the suit of the plaintiffs was unmaintainable in its present form, that it was barred by limitation, and that the pattah was genuine. The facts of the case appear to be shortly as follows: There is a Nimhowla, mauza Bora Manika, Kismut Butumora, standing in the name of Kali Kant Ganguli. Within that nimhowla was an oshut nimhowla, bearing a yearly jama of Rs. 40-6. By a kabala dated the 15th Aswin 1257 one Munshi took settlement of that oshut nimhowla from Rama Nand Chuckerbarti who was the great-grandfather of the two plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' father being Rama Nund's daughter's son. Rama Nund had four brothers, Rama Kanta Tarkabogish, Krishto Hari Chuckerberty, Loke Nath Chuckerb...
Woomesh Chandra Laskar Vs. Roma Nath Barman and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.683
Chitty, J.1. This was a suit by the plaintiff under Section 283. of the C.P.C. for declaration that a third share of certain properties was mortgaged to him on 3rd Chaitra 1309 for Rs. 10,000 and that the purchase of such properties by defendant No. 1 at a sale in execution was subject to the plaintiff's mortgage lien. The plaintiff also played that as he had paid off a prior mortgage decree for Rs. 5,604 on the entire property, it might be declared that defendant No. 1 purchased subject at least to the liability for that sum with interest. The only question before us is whether plaintiff can be allowed the priority of the mortgagee whose decree was paid off to the extent of the Rs. 5,604 due on that mortgage. Both the lower Courts have concurred in holding that the plaintiff had no intention, when that prior debt was paid off, of keeping that security alive for his own benefit, and they have accordingly dismissed the suit. Against that decision the plaintiff has preferred this second ...
Bholaram Chowdhry Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal671
Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit brought against the Corpora-ration of Calcutta in substance for a declaration that the refusal to give sanction to make certain additions and alterations to the plaintiff's building has been irregular, illegal and wrongful, and that he is entitled to have such sanction, and for an injunction restraining the Corporation from causing portions of the plaintiff's building to be demolished and from further harassing the plaintiff with prosecutions for the alleged breach ] of the Building Regulations as has been done. 2.This suit is really an action for a mandamus to force the Corporation to sanction certain plans rejected under the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The Municipal Act of 1899 is not an easy Act to construe in all respects. Section 5 constitutes three municipal authorities carrying out the provisions of the Act, (i) a Corporation, (ii) a General Committee of the Corporation, and (in) a Chairman of the Corporation.3. The Corporation, which ...
Bhola Ram Chowdhry Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.341
1. This is a suit brought against the Corporation of Calcutta in substance for a declaration that the refusal to give sanction to make certain additions and alterations to the plaintiff's building has been irregular, illegal and wrongful, and that he is entitled to have such sanction, and for an injunction restraining the Corporation from causing portions of the plaintiff's building to be demolished and from further harassing the plaintiff with prosecutions for the : alleged breach of the Building Regulations as has been done.2. This suit is really an action for a mandamus to force the Corporation to sanction certain plans rejected under the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The Municipal Act of 1899 is not an easy Act to construe in all respects. Section 5 constitutes three Municipal authorities carrying out the provisions of the Act (i) a Corporation, (ii) a General Committee of the Corporation, and (iii) a Chairman of the Corporation.3. The Corporation, which is the largest ...
Bipra Das Dey Vs. Rajaram Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal765
Doss, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif of Bankura, dated the 25th January 1909, should not be set aside.2. It appears that the opposite party who were the plaintiffs in the Court below brought a suit along with the pro forma defendants, who were their co-sharers, for arrears of rent due on two holdings. These pro forma defendants upon their refusing to join the other plaintiffs in the suit were subsequently transposed to the category of defendants. The decree which the plaintiff obtained was one for a share of the rent due to them alone. In the execution of that decree, the two holdings were attached. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred a claim under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code. The opposite party objected that the claim was barred under Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court below has given effect to that objection.3. I am of opinion that the order of the Munsif cannot be sustained.4. Section 170 is one...
Bipra Das Dey Vs. Rajaram Bandopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.306
Doss, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif of Bankura, dated the 25th January 1909, should not be set aside.2. It appears that the opposite party who were the plaintiffs in the Court below brought a suit along with the pro forma defendants, who were their co-sharers, for arrears of rent due on two holdings. These pro forma defendants, upon their refusing to join the other plaintiffs in the suit, were, subsequently, transposed to the category of defendants. The decree which the plaintiffs obtained was one for a share of the rent due to them alone. In the execution of that decree, the two holdings were attached. Thereupon, the petitioner, preferred a claim under Section 278, C.P.C. The opposite party objected that the claim was barred under Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court below has given effect to that objection.3. I am of opinion that the order of the Munsif cannot be sustained.4. Section l70 is one of the section...
Chandra Kanta Pathak Vs. Bhagjur Bepari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.525
1. The facts of the case out of which this second appeal arises are of great importance and must be set out clearly in order to clear the ground for a consideration of the law points which arise. One Anathi was the owner of a piece of land in Barpeta Bazar with a tin roofed house on it which has been always used as a shop. He died leaving a widow named Pechi and a minor son and daughter. On the 4th of July 1887, Pechi executed a deed purporting to be a will, in which for herself and her minor children she set out that she was unable to support them and, therefore, made over the property consisting of this land and shop to her husband's friend Dukhu Sutar, who was to support her and the children out of the profits of the property until the son came of age when he was to get what remained of it; if both son and daughter died, Dukhu was to become owner of the property. The widow appears to have been on her deathbed when she made this disposition and we find that Dukhu was allowed to prove...
Hara Gobind Saha Vs. Purna Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.522
1. The question raised in this appeal is really a very simple one. The plaintiff lent Rs. 105 to the defendant upon a simple mortgage bond. Just within the period of six years' limitation he Sued the defendant to recover upon this bond. The defendant took a defence, the real character of which has not been noted by either of the lower Courts. It said that the defendant borrowed the money from a money-lending firm which consisted of the plaintiff's father and his uncle, that this firm was in the benami of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had no right or ownership in the money borrowed under the mortgage bond. The findings of fact of the lower Court show that this was not the ease. The plaintiff was the son of the karta of a joint Hindu family, and he appears to have had access to the joint family funds of the family. He used these funds to lend Rs. 105 to the defendant and whether he was entitled to do so or not is a question between himself and his co-sharers. It so happened that t...
Dursan Singh and ors. Vs. Durbejoy Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.530
Carnduff, J.1. On the 9th October 1901, the first four defendants to this suit, now appellants before this Court, commenced an action against the fifth defendant for recovery of rent, and on the 14th March 1902, obtained a decree. About three years later they took out execution and attached the disputed lands as the holding; of their judgment-debtor. On the 9th June 1905, the plaintiff preferred a claim under Section 278, C.P.C., upon the allegation that part of the lauds formed his ancestral tenancy, that the remainder had been purchased by him on the 10th January 1901, and that no portion of the lands belonged to the judgment-debtor of the decree-holders. The claim was rejected on the 31st August 1905 and on the 9th September following, the plaintiff commenced this action under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for declaration that the disputed properties were owned by him, that the fifth defendant, the judgment-debtor of the other defendants, had no interest therein, and t...
Normada Sundari Debi Vs. Tarip Mollah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.596
1. The plaintiff-appellant sued to recover khas possession of certain lands as included in her gauti tenure, which she purchased in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, and for ejectment from the same of the defendants on the ground that their holding of the tenure was an incumbrance which she was entitled to annul. The tenure was purchased by the plaintiff on the 27th April 1903 and her purchase was confirmed on the 30th June 1903. She obtained possession on the 24th November 1903. On the 17th April 1904, a notice under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act was served on the defendants and the present suit was instituted on the 3rd October 1904. The defendants claimed a permanent tenancy under jamai right in the land, and also plead ed that a certain portion of their holding was a protected interest as containing houses, gardens and tanks. There was a further question whether the mother of the tenants who were sued, who was admittedly the proprietress of a 2 anna share could be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »