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.
Tara Prasonno Mukherjee Vs. Asutosh Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.998
Sharfuddin, J.1. There is a Bil called Karmun Bil extending over an area of about two hundred bighas, the greater portion of which lies within the plaintiff's mouzahs Eshebpur and Barapara. The present suit is for recovery of possession of fishery rights over this Bil.2. The defendants' chief contentions are that the claim is time-barred and that the Bil in question belongs to the defendants mouzah Haldipara.3. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff appealed to this Court. The points taken on his behalf at the hearing of the appeal are:(1) That the Court of appeal below ought to have held that the kanungoe papers Exhibits A and A2 were not admissible in evidence in the absence of any evidence to show that the estate to which they referred was held khas or was under attachment at the time when they were prepared.(2) That the lower appellate Court has not found that the Bil mentioned in the kanungoe papers is the Bil in dispute.(3) That the alleged po...
Lakhya Dasya Vs. Umakanto Chuckerbutty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.818
1. This was a suit by Lakhya Dasya, widow of one Nyasa Das, to recover possession of certain lands on declaration of her title thereto and for that purpose to have set aside the decree in Suit No. 222 of 1897 and the sale in execution of that decree in case No. 609 of 1899 as illegal, fraudulent and without consideration. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below and she has preferred this second appeal to this Court.2. The question argued before us is whether the learned District Judge was right in holding, first, that the plaintiff's suit was barred under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, and, secondly, that in the former suit the estate of Mohe Narain, the father of Nyasa Das, was sufficiently represented.3. To take the question of Section 244 first it is clear that that section could only be a bar if the plaintiff's right to set aside the decree in suit No. 222 of 1897 was negatived. If that decree be held to be good, then no doubt, as Nyasa D...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›