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.
Juramoni Chowkidar Vs. Pran Krishna Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.430
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Judge of Chittagong on appeal from the lower Court holding that an application for delivery of possession by the decree-holder is a step-in-aid of execution.2. It appears that in an execution case the decree-holder put up some property to sale out of which 15 Rupees was realized and the execution case was struck off as partly satisfied on the 18th February 1904. The property so sold appears to have been purchased by the decree-holder himself, and he asked by a regular petition to the Court to be placed in possession of the same on the 1st September 1904. He, however, made no further application for execution until 24th June 1907. It is argued that the application for delivery of possession being merely a ministerial act, and the decree-holder having already obtained all the satisfaction that he could obtain out of his first application which had been struck off on the 18th February, the application of the 1st September 1904 c...
Upendra Kishore Rai Chaudhury Vs. Ram Tara Debya Chaudhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.542
1. This was a suit for accounts brought by the plaintiff on attaining his majority against the defendant who appears to have been his aunt and at one time to have held certificate of guardianship for his person and property from the District Judge. The suit was brought on the allegation that the accounts of the period during which the defendant No. 1 administered the plaintiff's property were in the possession of the defendant No. 1, and the first prayer in the plaint was that defendant No. 1, he directed to produce. the papers which were fully described in the Schedule (ga). He then prayed that when these accounts were produced the Court itself or by a competent Commissioner should examine these accounts and award to the plaintiff Rs. 2,600 or any lesser amount which may be found to have been misappropriated, or any excess amount on payment of additional Court-fee.2. An objection was taken before the Subordinate Judge in paragraph 11 of the written statement that all the account-books...
Nawab Syed Golam MohiuddIn HosseIn and ors. Vs. Musammat Parbati and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.520
Doss, J.1. This appeal arises out of an action to recover possession of a certain Hat called Alamgunj Hat.2. On the 19th November 1898, corresponding to the 4th Aghran 1906, one Syed Ashgar Reza executed a mortgage bond in favour of Ram Chandra Babu, whereby amongst other properties he mortgaged the hat in suit. On the 30th March. 1904, the mortgagee obtained a mortgage decree directing the sale of the mortgaged properties. On the 7th June 1905, the hut was sold and purchased by the plaintiff for Rs. 16,000. She duly obtained possession of this hat on the 15th September 1905. Subsequently on the 9th. January 1906, the dwelling house of Syed Ashgar Reza, together with the adjoining site on which the hat is held, was sold under a certificate issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act and was purchased by the defendants. In March 1906, the defendants obtained possession of the properties purchased by them and thereafter dispossessed the plaintiff from this hat. In the month following, t...
In Re: Barristers and Vakils
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.297
1. The Acting Chief Justice intimated that the majority of the Court were of opinion that the Vakils had no right of audience in the High Court in cases sent up for trial there under Act XIV of 1908; the reasons for so holding, if necessary, would be given later....
Gobind Prosad Vs. Kazi Basir-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.313
1. The only point for decision in this case is whether the Secretary of State for India was a necessary party to the suit. The suit is substantially one for recovery of possession of a certain property sold under a certificate issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act. A certificate was issued against Wahidunnessa. She was the widow of Imad-ud-din, who died in the lifetime of his mother. According to the plaintiff's case, Wahidunnessa was not one of the heirs of Imad-ud-din and, therefore, had no interest in the property. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the heirs of Imad-ud-din. They, therefore, asked for a declaration that they are entitled to the property and that the sale could not affect their title; and, in the alternative, they asked that, in case the Court held that the effect of delivery of possession under the sale was to oust them from possession of the property, possession might be awarded to them.2. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Secretar...
Surendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Kiran Moyi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.428
1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge reversing the decision of the Munsif in a suit purporting to have been brought under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are that the plaintiff had obtained a decree against the second defendant on the 19th December 1901. In execution of that decree, she attached the property of the judgment-debtor on the 11th September 1902 and the sale was fixed for the 18th November 1902. Twenty days prior to the attachment viz., on 20th August 1902, the defendant No. 2 executed a Kabala in favour of his brother, the first defendant, conveying all his right in the property to him for a nominal consideration of Rs. 1,25,000. On the 22nd November 1902, the first defendant, as purchaser, put in a claim under Section 278 of the Code which was allowed with costs on the 23rd December 1903. This suit was instituted on the 22nd December 1904 by the plaintiff under Section 283 of the Code claiming that the possession of the propert...
Mathewson Vs. Ram Kanai Singh Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal675
Doss, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff, who is the proprietor of Pergunnah Barabhum in the District of Manbhum to recover khas possession of certain lands after cancellation of a 'maurasi mocurrari lease (which for brevity's sake shall hereafter be referred to as mocurrari)' executed in favour of defendant No. 1 by the manager of the Encumbered Estates Act shortly before the estate was released to the plaintiff. The lease bears date the 26th May 1903, and is for 241 bighas odd of which 222 bighas odd is situated in mouzah Bara Bazar and 19 bighas odd in mouzah Machar and the annual rental for the same is Rs. 100. The circumstances under which this lease was executed are these: On the 27th February 1883, Raja Brojokishore Singh, the father of the plaintiff, in consideration of a loan of Rs. 60,000 advanced to him by R. Watson & Co., gave them an ijara lease for a period of 21 years at an annual rental of Rs. 20,000 commencing from the beginning ...
BipIn Behari Hati Vs. Amrita Lal Bhattacharji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.685
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. The question which arises on tins appeal is a very short one and one of' law. and it is as to the apportionment of part of certain compensation money paid under the Land Acquisition Act as between the tenant of the land and his sub-tenant We are not concerned with the rights of the zemindar. The zemindar has received a six-anna share of the compensation money and he is satisfied, and we have nothing to do with him. The question, as I have said, arises between the tenant and his subtenant as to the division of the remaining ten anna share of the compensation money.2. The short facts are these:-It appears that one Kishory Lal was an occupancy that one Kishory Lal was an occupancy tenant of the land which was taken. He on the 1st of September 1884, granted a permanent lease of this land at a fixed rent of Rs 58 per annum, to the predecessors-in-title of the , Present appellants. That was a permanent lease. Prima facie in that state of circumstances the tenant would...
Hari Kissen Bhagat and ors. Vs. Bajrang Sahai Singh and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.434
Doss, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit by one of the three reversionary heirs of one Shamal Singh to recover possession of one-third share of the inheritance after the death of his widow, Dulhin Nawab Kumari. Shamal Singh died in 1842 and Dulhin Nawab Kumari died in the beginning of 1900. Suit No. 509 of 1904, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted on the 14th December 1904. Another suit No. 511 of 1904, which is the subject of the next appeal No. 325 of 1906, was instituted on the 16th December 1904 by the other reversioners, who claimed to recover possession of the remaining two-thirds share. Shamal Singh had three brothers, Raghubir. Bhupal and Jagrup. They all predeceased Nawab Kumari. Of the sons of Raghubir, those, who have survived Nawab Kumari, are Kasi Prosad and Ram Prosad. They are the plaintiffs in suit No. 509. Bhupal's son, Behary, and Behary's sons, Bishen Prosad and Kishen Prosad, all predeceased Nawab Kumari. Jagrup left three sons, of whom only one Bajrang Sa...
H. Mathewson and anr. Vs. Sri Sri Ram Kanai Singh Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.626
Doss, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff, who is proprietor of Pergunnah Barabhum in the District of Manbhoom, to recover khas possession of certain lands after cancellation of a mourasi mokarari lease (which for brevity's sake shall, hereafter, be referred to as 'mokarari') executed in favour of defendant No. 1 by the manager under the Encumbered Instates Act, shortly before the estate was released to the plaintiff. The lease bears date, the 26th May 1903 and is for 241 bighas odd of which 222 bighas odd is situated in mauza Bara Bazar and 19 bighas odd in mauza Machar; and the annual rental for the same is its. 100. The circumstances under which this lease was executed are these:On the 27th February 1883, Raja Brojo Kishore Singh, the father of the plaintiff, in consideration of a loan of Its. 60,000 advanced to him by R. Watson and Co., gave them an ijara, lease for a period of 21 years, at an annual rental of Rs. 20,000 commencing from the be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »