Kolkata Court June 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.
Sasthi Charan De Dass Vs. Sarojini Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.492
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in an action for recovery of possession of two parcels of land described as parcels ha (*) and kha (*) in the plaint. As regards the latter parcel the suit has been dismissed, and the matter is not before us. As regards the former parcel, the Court of first instance found that the plaintiff was not exclusively entitled to it as he had alleged in the plaint but was entitled to joint possession. The plaintiff thereupon applied for leave to amend the plaint. This application was refused and the Munsif dismissed the suit as regards the first plot. The plaintiff then appealed to the Subordinate Judge, who argeed with the Court of first instance that the plaintiff was not entitled to exclusive possession as claimed in the plaint, but only to joint possession of this land as part of a larger parcel. The plaintiff then again applied for Jeave to amend the plaint. This application was allowed, and the Subordinate Judge made a decree in favour of t...
Aughore Kumar Ganguli and ors. Vs. Mohamed Mussa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.662
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs J. Nos. 1 to 9 as the heirs of one Khudajannissa Begum and by plaintiff No. 10, as the assignee of a moiety of the interest of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 9 as such heirs. The suit relates to two properties (1) a zemindari known as Pargana Amirpur Balanda distinguished by Towzi No. 586 in the collectorate of the 24-Parganahs and (2) a lakhiraj resumed zemindari known as Mauza Ranigachi and Goberdhanpur 'distinguished by Towzi No. 1161 in the same collectorate. The second estate, we are told, was included in and has been carved out of the first estate. By their plaint as originally framed the plaintiffs asked for possession of the properties in suit on the ground that a mortgage of 22nd July 1848 to which those properties had been subject had been paid off; they further prayed that an account might be taken of what was due to the defendants as mortgagees under that mortgage; that if defendants had been over-paid a decree might be passed against them fo...
Abinash Chandra Bose and ors. Vs. Bama Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.17
1. In this case on 8th March 1900, one Kailas Haldar, predecessor-in-interest of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and defendant No. 3 executed a bond in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and Jadu Nath Banerjee, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The bond was registered and contained a provision for payment of the debt by sixteen annual instalments, the first of which would fall due in April 1901. The bond also contained a stipulation, that in the event of default being made in payment of any one instalment, the whole amount should fall due, and carry interest at 25 per cent per annum. The plaintiffs filed this suit on the 8th February 1909. They alleged that the first two instalments which fell due in April 1901 and April 1902, respectively, had been paid, and that default had been made in the payment of the subsequent instalments from 1903 onwards. They claimed to recover the whole sum due on the bond less the amount of the first two instalments. The defendants pleaded limitation,...
Harak Singh and ors. Vs. Kirat NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.734
1. Accepting as we must the finding of the District Judge that land in suit has been rendered unfit for the purposes of the tenancy, it necessarily follows that his decision was incorrect, for Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act clearly bears the meaning that has been placed upon it by Mr. Justice Coxe, whose decree is in the correct form. We must, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs. The two months for remedying the misuse will be from the date of this decree....
Bowen Vs. Bowen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal874,4Ind.Cas.334
Harinoton, J.1. This is a petition by the husband for dissolution of his marriage by reason of his wife's adultery with one George Evance.2. The respondent denies the adultery, makes a countercharge of adultery against her husband and alleges he is by reason of this misconduct disentitled to the relief he claims.3. The co-respondent does not defend the suit.4. The marriage took place in April 1903, the respondent being at that time fifteen years of age while the petitioner was thirty-two. There was issue of the marriage one child born in June 1904.5. According to the petitioner the respondent refused him his marital rights as far back as 1904. The wife denies this and says they lived together until 1907, but the question is of small importance as it is common ground that after the wife's return from Mussorie in that year, though residing together, they were not living as man and wife.6. Their differences came to ahead in February 1908: the wife left her husband's protection and remaine...
Damodar Manna and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Dhal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.468a
1. In our opinion the mere fact that an appeal has been preferred from an at: parte decree and is pending does not preclude a defendant against whom the decree was passed from applying under Section 108 of the Civil Procedure Code for an order to set it aside. Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Gopal Chandra Das Modak Vs. the Chairman of Santipur Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.512
1. The plaintiff has a house within the limits of the Municipal town of Santipore which abuts on one of the public roads. In front of that house there is a platform which it is said rests on the site of a part of that road, and on that theory the Municipality purporting to act under Section 202 of the Bengal Municipal Act took action for the removal of this platform. Thereupon the plaintiff commenced this suit for a permanent injunction. He succeeded before the Munsif. The Subordinate Judge did not agree with the Munsif, and principally relying on Section 233 of the Act as being the section by which the rights of the parties had to be determined, he varied the Munsif's decree. There was an appeal to this Court which came in the first instance before Mr. Justice Brett, together with a cross-appeal, with the result that, that learned Judge dismissed the suit. Now the plaintiff appeals to us under the Letters Patent.2. In our opinion the judgment of Mr. Justice Brett cannot be supported. ...
Mahomed Faiz Chowdhury Vs. Upendra Lal Singh Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.597
1. This suit relates to a certain taluk in the Tipperah District, called Durga Charan Dewan's Chakbasta. It appears to have had a somewhat unfortunate history for the past few years. For some reason or other it cannot be managed in the ordinary way and accordingly common managers have been appointed from time to time under Section 93 of the Tenancy Act. The second of these was a Mr. Sandys, who was appointed in 1891. He was succeeded by the principal defendant who was compelled to bring a suit for an account against Mr. Sandys which we understand is still pending. Then on the 20th December 1896 after an enquiry by a Commissioner which revealed a deplorable state of affairs, the District Judge dismissed the principal defendant and appointed the present plaintiff. On this occasion too all sorts of delays took place in handing over papers and finally the present suit for an account was brought by the plaintiff against the former manager, Muhammed Faiz Chowdhuri whom we may call for brevit...
Kedar Nath Joypooria and anr. Vs. Poorasundari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1909
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.634
Fletcher, J.1. This suit is- brought by the plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining specific performance of an agreement for a lease of certain premises Nos. 1 and 1-1, Rup Chand Roy's Street. The premises, in question, are the property of the defendant who appears to be a lady of considerable means. Prior to the 18th November 1907, the property had, for many years, been let to two persons, Heera Lai and Dwarka Das.2. Dwarka DAS, however, died and in November 1907 Heera Lal was the sole tenant. A considerable amount was then due to defendant from Heera Lal, for rent. Somewhere about November 1907, the plaintiffs approached the defendant's son-in-law, Sreenath Sen, who is also the defendant's duly authorised agent, for the purpose of obtaining a lease of the said premises Nos. 1 and 1-1, Rup Chand Roy's Street. There is a direct conflict of testimony between the parties, as to what took place when the parties orally came to a final agreement on the 18th November 1907. - The plaintiffs sa...
Kedar Bans Lal Misser Vs. Moharani Janki Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.856
1. We have before us an appeal and a Rule arising out of the same matter. The appellant applied to the District Judge of Darbhanga under Chapter XX of the Code of Civil Procedure to be adjudged an insolvent. The learned Judge refused the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to act in the matter, because the debts put forward by the appellant were debts which had been certified and in part been recovered under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act. The first question is whether the Judge was right in so holding. Various debts were certified against the appellant and by force of Section 19 of the Act such certificates became enforceable in the manner provided by Chapter XIX of the Code, and all the provisions of Chapter XIX and also of Chapter XX of the Code thereby applied as far as they were applicable. Chapter XX of the Code allows any insolvent to apply to a District Court for the relief afforded in that Chapter and in Section 19 of the Public Demands Rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »