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.
Kali Debya Vs. Bhagaban Nanda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.810
Mookerji, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to immovable property. The plaintiff commenced this action on the 28th September, 1905, upon the allegation that she obtained this property by inheritance upon the death of her son, that the defendant has got himself registered in the collectorate, that in the record of right which was published on the 15th August 1897, the defendant was entered as the owner, that this circumstance has thrown a cloud on her title and that, therefore, she is entitled to have her title declared in the property, of which she alleges she is in possession.2. The Court of first instance held with reference to the plea of limitation raised by the defendant that the suit was in time as it had been brought within 12 years from the date of the publication of the record of right. Upon the merits the Court of first instance found that the plaintiff had established her case. In this view a decree was made in favour of ...
iswardhari Singh Vs. Narsingh Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.899
Mookerji, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in an action for recovery of possession of immovable property. It appears that one Dhoordhar Singh left three sons Sarablal Singh, Narsingh Singh and Behari Singh. Sarablal left two sons Jaikissen Singh and Harikissen Singh and Behari Singh left a son Fateh Bahadur Singh. The parties were members of a joint Mitakshara family; and it has been found by the learned Subordinate Judge that they have not yet separated. On the 20th September 1905 Harikissen executed a conveyance in favour of the present appellant for Rs. 382 in respect of two cottahs of land purporting to sell thereby his share out of a larger plot of twelve cottahs which belonged to the entire family. Narsing for himself and as guardian for his nephew Jaikissen along with Fateh Bahadur then commenced this action on the 1st December 1905 for recovery of the property transferred, on the ground that it was part of the joint family property and an alienation of it...
Dwarka Nath Biswas Vs. Kedar Nath Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.1
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for recovery of money. In proof of his claim the plaintiff relied upon an acknowledgment alleged to have been given by the defendant on the 10th April 1903, The suit was commenced on the 10th April 1906, that is, on the very last day prescribed by the Limitation Act for its institution. The plaint was insufficiently stamped and the Court on that day granted the plaintiff time till the 17th April to put in the deficit Court fees. This order apparently was not carried out and on the 18th April the plaintiff asked for an enlargement of the time within which he might pay the Court-fees. This application was, granted and the Court allowed the plaintiff to pay the Court-fees on or before the 28th April. The Court-fees- were actually paid on the 23rd April and the case was then allowed to proceed.2. The Court of first instep held upon the evidence, that the acknowledgement alleged by the plaintiff was made out and decre...
Rajani Kanta Chattopadhya Vs. Abinash Chandra Rai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.366
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action to enforce a, mortgage security executed in his favour on the 6th January 1903 by the mother and guardian of the first defendant. The second defendant has been joined as a purchaser of the mortgaged properties at an execution sale held on the 11th June 1906. The question in controversy between the parties was whether the mother of the minor defendant borrowed Rs. 100 from the plaintiff for legal necessity and executed the mortgage bond in suit. The Court of first instance found upon the question of the factum of the loan that there was no possible doubt. Upon the question of legal necessity that Court also found that there was legal necessity and that the plaintiff had made bona fide enquiry at the time which entitled him to protection. In this view the Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge has disposed of the case and reversed the decision of the Court of first instance in a very ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›