Kolkata Court July 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.
Fakir Shai Mondal and ors. Vs. Chandmoni Dassya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.990
1. The plaintiff Chandmoni Dassya filed this suit to recover possession of a certain jote with occupancy right containing 24 bighas 3 kattas of land. She pleaded that she had purchased it on the 16th Falgun 1303 from one Kanu Pal by a registered kabala in the name of her minor son Modhu Sudan Pal who is the defendant No. 8 in this case. Subsequently, a suit (No. 92 of 1903) was brought by one Fakir Shah Mondal and others against three defendants of whom the aforesaid Mohdu Sudan Pal was one to recover possession of the same land. That suit was defended by all the three defendants including Modhu Sudan Pal but was decreed against them all. The plaintiffs' allegation in this case is that that decree was fraudulent as against her.2. In the Court Of first instance, the Munsif came to the conclusion that there was no evidence whatever to show that the previous decree was obtained by fraud, and also that the decree having been passed against the benamidar, Modhu Sudan Pal, it was binding upo...
Ahmedullah Bhuiya and ors. Vs. KaminuddIn Patwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.989
1. These ten appeals arise out of as many suits by the plaintiff as ijaradars to recover from the several defendants rent for the years 1308 to 1311 B.S. inclusive. The ijara was granted to the plaintiffs' predecessor Aminuddin Bhumya in 1310, and continued an assignment in his favour by the landlord Ahmad Ghazi Chowdhury of the rents then already due, for 1303 and 1309 and remaining unpaid. It is conceded that the rents fall due in the Bengali month of Magh. The 31st chaitra 1308 was equivalent to 13th April 1902. The suits were filed on 15th April 1905, the 13th and 14th being Court holidays. The sole question in these appeals is whether the claim for the rent of the Bengali year 1308 is barred by limitation. If Article 110 of schedule II to the Limitation Act, 1877, governs the case the suits are time-barred; if the- special limitation prescribed by Section 184 and Article 2 (b) of the schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act is applicable, the suits are within time. Both the Courts b...
Ajodhya Pershad Vs. Mahadeo Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.9
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of the property of a Hindu joint family, the parties being the descendants of one Gopal Lal, a banker of Mozafferpur.2. The plaintiff, who is a son of Gopal Lal, alleges that in the year 1896 there was litigation between him and his father and other members of the family, regarding certain of the family properties, that while that litigation was pending, there was a partition of some of the family properties, and that he and the defendant remained in separate possession of the properties so divided, and he now seeks for a partition of the remaining movable and immovable properties of the family, including the profits derived from the lands and business transactions of the family after an account of the same has been taken. The defendant raised a number of objections in the lower Court, which will be dealt with as far as is necessary for the purpose of this appeal. Subsequently on the 2nd February 1905, a preliminary decree for partition...
L.O. Clarke Vs. Brajendra Kissore Roy Chowdhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.786
1. This is an application to us for a certificate that, as regards amount, value and nature, this case fulfils the re-requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that it is otherwise a fit case for appeal to His Majesty in Council. The decree from which it is desired to appeal, is one passed in affirmation of a decree of a single Judge on the Original Side of this Court whereby a sum of Rs. 500 was awarded as damages for trespass. It is, therefore, clear that, as regards amount and value, this case does not comply with the provisions of the Code entitling the applicant to a certificate. But if we read the prayer of the petition as though it prayed in the alternative that the case is otherwise a fit case for appeal to His Majesty in Council, then we have to consider how far it would be right for us to accede to the application on that ground.2. In this connection, we have to bear in mind what was said by their Lordships of the Privy Council in a case bearing at any r...
Kamini Sundari Dassya and ors. Vs. Sabed Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.793
1. These are three rules calling upon the opposite party defendants to show cause why the decrees dismissing the plaintiffs' suits under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act should not be set aside on the ground that the plaintiffs were not dispossessed in due course of law. It appears that the plaintiffs were tenants on the land. There was a decree against their landlord for khas possession and in execution of that decree the Commissioner ousted not only the landlord but also the tenants. We do not think that this dispossession in execution of a decree for khas possession can be said to be a dispossession otherwise than in due course of law. Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was hot intended to be used in cases of this kind for which a special provision was made in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, Section 832 (to which, there is a corresponding provision in the Code of 1908). The learned Munsif has found against the plaintiffs on the facts and it appears that the dispossession wa...
Mohamad Yusuffe and ors. Vs. Jashodha Kumar Das Purkaista and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.930
Chitty and Carnduff, JJ.1. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the transaction between the parties was a mortgage by conditional sale, or was an out and out sale by the plaintiffs to the defendants with a contract for re-purchase within four years. This question depends on the construction to be placed upon the documents in the case. The kabala is not before us but it is admitted that it was an out and out sale for a sum of Rs. 625. The deed was registered and, under it, the defendants took possession of the property. On the same day that the kahala was executed, an ekrarnama was signed by the predecessor of the defendants, and it contained these terms: I promise to you in the presence of the witnesses to my purchasing kabala noted on the margin that if you repay Rs. 625 the amount of purchase-money, and the amount of costs incurred by me for the purchase within four years from this date then I or my successors will be bound to give up in your favour the aforesaid ...
Guru Das Kundoo Chowdhuri and ors. Vs. Kumar Basanta Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.15
1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to, and recovery of possession of, certain chur lands alleged to be reformations in situ of mouzas Durlabpur, Jirat Mukundnagar otherwise called Mnkundpur and Hatikhanda with Gujarhat Ram Chandrapur. The plaintiffs claim to be entitled to one moiety of a 10 anna share in the said lands, the right to the other moiety being vested in defendants Nos. 16 and 17, and the remaining 6 annas in defendants Nos. 2 to 15 and 1.8. The Secretary of State for India in Council has also been made a party, defendant No. 1, to this suit. It may be mentioned that defendant No. 18 was not one of the original defendants but was added by order of 8th February 1905, so that the suit as against him must be taken to have been filed on that day. It is conceded that there are two estates one known as the 10 ani estate, Lot Mohamed Aminpur, mahal No. 3989 of the Towzi of the Hooghly Collectorate, and the 6 ani estate, Lot Gobindpur, No, 100 in the...
Singer Manufacturing Company Vs. Raja Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal960
Sharfuddin and Richardson, JJ.1. This is a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Small Cause Court Judge, dated the 19th January 1909, should not be modified.2. The facts are that the plaintiffs, who are agents on behalf of the Singer Manufacturing Company, let out under a written agreement a sewing machine to the defendant. The agreement provided, inter alia, that the defendant should pay for the hire of the machine a sum of Rs. 5 every month in advance. At the time of the delivery of the machine, a sum of Rs. 20 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs, and the agreement stated in the preamble that no credit was to be given for this sum on account of rent unless and until a purchase was effected in accordance with other provisions. In Clause (e) of the agreement there is the following further condition: 'When the hiring is terminated and/or the machine and accessories are/or returned to the owner, the hirer shall not, on any ground whatever, be entitled to ...
Ram Kristo Mohapatra Vs. Jagannath Mohapravu, Idol and anr., Shebait
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.98
Vincent, J.1. The facts, out of which this appeal arises, are very simple. The plaintiff No. 2 is, as alleged, the shebait of a certain idol, and holds in that character as marfatwar on behalf of the idol certain amrilomonohi lands. He mortgaged these lands to the defendant, in the year 1890, and in execution of a decree obtained in a suit-brought upon that mortgage-bond the defendant bought up the land in the year 1894; in the recent record-of-rights the name of the defendant has boon entered as the possessor of the lands. The plaintiff No. 2 now seeks to get the sale sot aside and to recover possession of the property with mesne profits on the ground that the land was debutter and not transferable.2. The suit has been decreed in both the lower Courts, and the defendant appeals urging the following points:(1) that the plaintiff No. 2 is estopped from bringing this suit.(2) that the suit is time-barred.(3) that the plaintiff' is not the shebait of the Temple, and is not, therefore, ent...
Jotindra Nath Acharjee Chowdhury Vs. Moharshey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.430a
Chitty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff to recover rent at the rate of Rs. 30 by virtue of a qabuliat, dated the 8th of January 1886.2. A preliminary objection was taken that no second appeal lay in this case under the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. I am of opinion that an appeal does lie inasmuch, as the question at issue is a right to enhance or vary the rent of a tenant of the amount of rent annually payable.3. The only question in the appeal is whether the stipulation in the qabuliat is one to which Courts will give legal effect. By the qabuliat the tenant who was the predecessor -in-interest of the present defendant executed a lease mentioning therein the rate of the rental to be altogether Rs. 30 payable every year. 'Rupees nine whereof being upon my representation or application to you suspended for the present and stipulating to pay to your Sarkar the remaining Rs. 21 in all every year according to the kistibundi specified in Schedul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »