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.
Cooverjee Bhoja Vs. Rajendra Nath Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal617,2Ind.Cas.831
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit by the buyers to recover damages against the seller for breach of contract for nondelivery of certain manganese ore. The contract was entered into through a firm of brokers, Messrs. Buskin & Co., and is in the following terms: Calcutta:Messrs. Martin & Co.22nd August 1906.Dear Sirs,We have this day bought by your order and on your account from Messrs. Cooverjee Bhoja, 19, Pollock Street,The following manganese ore 5,000 tons at Rs. 14 per ton in waggons.The ore to be delivered at Kamptee or other neighbouring station, B.-N. Railway, 500 tons in October, 1,000 tons in November, 1,500 tons in December 1906, or larger quantities each month if practicable, the whole 5,000 tons to be completed not later than the 15th February 1907.Quality of ore to be similar to that shown by the analyses already taken, copies of which are hereto attached.Buyers or other representatives to sample and analyse each parcel at place of delivery and such quantity only as...
Golam MohiuddIn HosseIn Vs. Parbati
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal665
Doss, J.1. This appeal arises out of an action to recover possession of a certain hut called Alamgunge hat.2. On the 19th November 1898, corresponding to the 4th Aghran 1306, 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 hat 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, the...
Ram Khelawan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal827
Caspersz and Ryves, JJ.1. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Patna to show cause why the conviction and sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that they (the zemindars' people) were acting in the exercise of their right bond fide in preventing the tenants from harvesting '-ho crops in any place other than the village khalihan.2. We have heard learned Counsel in support of the Rule, and perused the judgments of the lower Courts. Twenty persons were originally charged, variously, under Sections 147 and 148, and under Sections 324 and 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Some of them were also ordered to pay fines, and all of them were bound down under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code to keep the peace for one year.3. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted twelve and convicted eight persons. Of these, four were convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Cod...
Ram Khelawan Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.96
1. This rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Patna to show cause why the conviction and sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that they (the zemindars people) were acting in the exercise of their right bona fide in preventing the tenants from harvesting the crops in any place other than the village Kalihan.2. We have heard learned Counsel, in support of the rule, and perused the judgments of the lower Courts. Twenty persons were originally charged, variously, under Sections 147 and 148 and under Sections 324 and 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and convicted, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Some of them wore also ordered to pay fines, and all of them were bound down under Section 106, Cr. P. C, to keep the peace for one year.3. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted twelve (12) and convicted eight (8) persons. Of these, four wore convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and the remaining four under Sect...
Bejoy Sankar Sikdar and ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.539
1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants to recover possession of certain chur land after declaration of their title on the allegation that this land formed portion of a Howla, the whole of which they had purchased at an auction sale for arrears of rent brought against the registered tenants of the Howla. The plaintiffs are the proprietors of a 7 anna share of the taluq in which the Howla is situated and some of the defendants are the proprietors of the remaining 9 anna share of the taluq, while the other defendants are the proprietors of a neighbouring taluq. The defence set up by the defendants, who are the proprietors of the remaining 9 annas of the taluq, was that, by the purchase in execution of the decree for rent, the plaintiffs had not acquired a title to the whole of the holding and, therefore, they were not entitled to the whole of the land in suit; while the defendants who are the proprietors of the neighbouring taluq, alleged that a ce...
Kumar Rameswar Maliah Vs. Ram Tarak Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.650
Doss, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is substantially one for recovery of possession of two parcels of land, though the plaintiffs have asked for certain subsidiary declaration and also for several incidental reliefs which perhaps are not quite consistent with each other.2. The defendants Nos. 1 to 8 are the putnidars of Lat Kajora Pargana Shergarh. They may shortly be described as the Hazra defendants.3. On the 3rd Baisakh 1266 B.S., corresponding with the 15th April 1859, the ancestors of the Hazra defendants granted a mokarari patta of certain lands of Mouza Nij Kajara to Birbal Pandit, benamidar for Gobind Prasad Pandit, and to Dina Nath Panda, benamidar for the Hazra lessors. Two days after, that is, on the 5th Baisakh 1266, corresponding with the 17th April 1859, Dina Nath executed in favour of Birbal Pandit a deed of hissanama which recited that in the mokarari patta, Birbal had a ten anna share and Dina Nath six anna share. The deed contained several stipulations...
Ananda Kishore Chowdhry Vs. Daije Thakurain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal726
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that the immovable properties, which form the subject-matter of litigation, had been privately partitioned and could not form the subject-matter of partition by the Collector under the Estates Partition Act. There has been no investigation into the facts of the case, but the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on several preliminary grounds, namely, first, that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of Act V of 1897; secondly, that it was barred by limitation under Section 25 of that Act; thirdly, that under Section 119 of the Act, the plaintiffs were precluded from questioning the validity of the order for partition made by the Revenue Court; and fourthly, that the suit was barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court, and on their behalf it has been contended that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge on each of t...
Mackenzie Vs. Narsingh Sahai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal762
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first party defendant in a suit for partition of joint property, and is directed against the preliminary decree made on the 11th April 1907.2. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that before the appeal was presented to this Court the final decree in the suit had been made by the Subordinate Judge on the 10th July 1907, and that consequently it was not open to the appellant to challenge the correctness of the preliminary decree without preferring an appeal against the final decree. In our opinion this contention is well founded and the appeal is incompetent.3. The principle applicable to cases of this description was laid down by this Court in Madhu Sudan Sen v. Kamini Kanta Sen (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calc. 1023 where it was ruled that the right of appeal from interlocutary orders ceases with the disposal of the suit. That principle, in our opinion, is equally applicable to cases of suits ...
Ananda Kishore Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Daiji Thakurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.549
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that the immoveable properties which form the subject matter of litigation had been privately partitioned and could not form the subject matter of partition by the Collector under the Estates Partition Act. There has been no investigation into the facts of the case but the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on several preliminary grounds namely, first, that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of Act V of 1897; secondly, that it was barred by limitation under Section 25 of that Act; thirdly, that under Section 119 of the Act the plaintiffs were precluded from questioning the validity of the order for partition made by the Revenue Court; and fourthly that the suit was barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court and on their behalf it has been contended that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge on each of the above points is erroneous and ...
M.H. Mackenzie Vs. Lala Narsing Sahai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.413
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first party defendant in a suit for partition of joint property, and is directed against the preliminary decree made on the 11th April 1907.2. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that before the appeal was presented to this Court the final decree in the suit had been made by the Subordinate Judge on the 10th July 1907, and that consequently it was not open to the appellant to challenge the correctness of the preliminary decree, without preferring an appeal against the final decree. In our opinion, this contention is well founded, and the appeal is incompetent.3. The principle applicable to cases of this description was laid down by this Court in Madhu Sudan Sen v. Kamini Kant Sen 32C. 1023, where it was ruled that the right of appeal from interlocutory orders ceases with, the disposal of the suit. That principle, in our opinion, is equally applicable to cases of suits in which there is first a preliminary dec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »