Kolkata Court April 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.
Nerode Kanta Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Bharat Chandra Chakravarti and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.410
1. This is a suit for establishment of a right of way for the removal of obstructions and for an injunction against the defendants not to further obstruct it. Both the lower Courts have held in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants have preferred this second appeal. Though no less than 16 grounds of appeal have been filed, the only question that was argued before us, and that we need determine, is whether the suit is barred by limitation. It would seem that this path has been a bone of contention between the parties, who are agnates, descended from a common stock, for 160 years, for we find that there was a chitta of 1156 B.S. relating to it. We need not, however, go so far back as that. In the year 1861 the predecessors of the plaintiffs brought a suit to establish their right to this very way, and in 1862 a decree was passed in their favour. From 1862 the plaintiffs had uninterrupted user of the way until the obstructions by the defend-ants now complained of. It is not quite certa...
Srimanta Bera Vs. Indra Narayan Prodhan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.468
1. The order complained of runs thus: Srimanta Bera claims a prescriptive right to pass the water of his tank over the paddy land on the south. He has entirely failed to prove exercise of the right uninterruptedly for twenty years. His claim is, therefore, disallowed.'2. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, in passing this class of order (section 147), the Court should adopt the Form No. 24 in Schedule V of the Code. There is no such order in the present case, and it is not a little difficult to understand what is the meaning of the order actually passed.3. The petitioner who obtained this Rule contends, through his learned Vakil, that the Magistrate declined jurisdiction, and urges that Section 147 is not confined to cases of easement acquired by uninterrupted enjoyment for twenty years as provided by Section 26 of the Limitation Act. This contention derives support from the proviso to Section 147 which contemplates an exercise of the right, whatever that right may be, within...
Bejoy Madhub Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Chandra Nath Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.40
1. The case of Sheikh Mansar Ali v. Matiullah 12 C.W.N. 896 : 8 Cr.L.J. 202, upon which the learned Vakil for the petitioner relies, was one where the Magistrate had not given sufficient time for regular proceedings to be followed, and the learned Judges; therefore, set aside the order, attaching the subject of dispute, under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code. A similar order has been passed in the case now before us; but we are of opinion that the Extra Assistant Commissioner of Sunamgunge did give sufficient time to the parties. He drew up proceedings on the 1st September 1908, but the parties did not file written statements and the first party, the petitioners, prayed for a local investigation. That prayer was not acceded to, because, as we find in the explanation now submitted, the disputed land was situated at a distance of two day's journey from Sunatngunge. As neither party adduced any evidence, and an interval of more than two. months had elapsed, the Magistrate on the 7th N...
Laliteswar Singh Vs. Bhabeswar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.812
1. This is an application to stay the execution of a decree. But the respondents' answer is that it is not an application to stay the execution of a decree but to stay the proceedings in a suit following a preliminary decree, and he says that this Court has no jurisdiction to make the order asked for because the only Court that can make that order is the Court which has seizin of the appeal, namely, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.2. The decree is a preliminary decree for partition, and a preliminary decree is defined under the Code as one in which further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. This decree ordering a partition is one of that nature because before the suit can be finally disposed of the partition has to be arrived at by the Commissioner, his report submitted to the Court and then the final decree passed. Now under order 41, Rule 5, it is provided that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or ...
Mansar Ali Vs. Abdul Karim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.753
1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises are that the decree-holder obtained a rent decree against the judgment-debtor for the period of 1309 to 1312. His prayer for ejectment under Section 66 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on account of the arrears of 1312 was refused by the Munsif, but was granted by the District Judge on the 7th July 1907. On the decree-holder taking out execution the judgment-debtor made an objection to the effect that the decree-holder could not enforce the order of ejectment. Both the Courts below have allowed the objection and hence the present appeal by the decree-holder to this Court.2. The ejectment decree, which was sought to be executed, was in respect of rent for 1312 and was passed as already observed by the appellate Court on the 10th July 1907. It appears, however, that on the 6th September 1907 the decree-holder brought another suit against the judgment-debtor for the rent of 1313 which year terminated in the month of April 1907. He obtained...
In Re: R. Baxter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal645
R. Harington, C.J.1. We agree in the view expressed by the Board that exemption could be claimed and allowed in the case of Mr. Baxter. We accordingly direct that the sum of Rs. 500 paid by him when he was enrolled as an advocate of this Court be refunded....
Mohan Pandey Vs. Lala Bhagwati Charan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.813
Carnduff, J.1. In these six cases the appellants were sued by the respondent for bhaoli rent due in respect of the years 1902 to 1905. In all of them except that brought against Dwarka Mahto and others which will be dealt with separately hereafter, the Court of first instance found that the landlord had signally failed to prove his claim and decreed the suits at the rate of Nakdi rents alleged by the tenants. In its judgment the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff was shown to be 'quite unsatisfactory,' the jamabundis and chittas were discredited and held to be valueless; the teiskhana papers filed were likewise discarded, and the remaining documents relied upon, being Road Cess returns which had been made in 1888 by other tenants of the same mauza in the capacity of ticcadars and, therefore, qua landlords, were rejected as being no evidence whatever against the appellants. The lower appellate Court, however, while leaving untouched all the other findings of the first Court as descr...
In Re: R.A. Baxter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.843
1. We agree in the view-expressed by the Board that exemption could be claimed and allowed in the case of Mr. Baxter. We, accordingly, direct that the sum of Rs. 500 paid by him when he was enrolled as an Advocate of this Court be refunded....
Purna Chandra Mandal Vs. Anukul Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal654,2Ind.Cas.844a
Chitty and Vincent, JJ.1. This second appeal arises out of an application made by a judgment-debtor to set aside a sale in execution. The sale took place as long ago as 17th January 1896. This judgment-debtor, Anukul Biswas, applied to the Court to have the sale set aside on the 15th April 1907, on the ground of fraud. The first Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had utterly failed to prove that there was any fraud or collusion on the part of the decree-holders or the auction-purchaser in bringing the property to sale, and it accordingly dismissed the application. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge found that there was fraud on the part of the decree-holders, and that they had got the property sold to Purna Chandra Mandal, the present appellant, in collusion with certain judgment-debtors, and he accordingly set aside the sale.2. So far as the findings of fact go with regard to the question of fraud, it is not necessary for us in this appeal to consider them. The sole questi...
Churaman Sahu Vs. Gopi Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal1
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has resulted in this appeal, is a house which admittedly belonged to one Amrita Lal, a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara law. He died on the 1st October, 1886, and left a widow, Musammat Janki Koer, and an unmarried daughter, Musammat Gango. The daughter was given in marriage to the third defendant, Ajodhya Pershad, in May, 1889. Her gowna ceremony took place more than two years after her marriage, and on the 28th December, 1891, within a few days of the performance of that ceremony, her mother executed in her favour an absolute deed of gift in respect of the disputed house. Musammat Gango continued to be in possession of the house as her stridhan property, and died in October, 1894. On the 5th January, 1899, her husband, as her legal heir, transferred the house to the first two defendants, Musammat Janki Koer, the widow of the original owner, died on the 24th March, 1905', and on the 23rd July, 1905, the first pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »