Kolkata Court August 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.
Bhupati Nath Smrititir the Bhattacharjee Vs. Ram Lal Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.642
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The questions referred for our determination are:(1) Does the principle of Hindu Law which invalidates a gift other than to a sentient being capable of accepting it, apply to a bequest to trustees for the establishment of an image and the worship of a Hindu deity after the testator's death and make such a bequest void?(2) Whether the cases of Upendra Lal Boral v. Hem Chundra Boral 25 C. 405 : 2 C.W.N. 295; Rojomoyee Dassi v. Troylukyo Mohiney Dassee 29 C. 260 and Nogendra Nandini Dassi v. Binoy Krishna Deb 30 C. 521 have been correctly decided so, far as they lay down the proposition that a gift to a Hindu deity whose image is to be established and consecrated in future is void? The disposition which has led to this reference, is contained in the will of Umesh Chandra Lahiri, and is in these terms:(Ka). All my properties shall be placed in the hands of Baba Ram Lal Maitra, son of the late Ram Chandra Maitra of Hari-pur and the grandsons of my father-in-law, Sri...
Karnadhar Haldar Vs. Hari Prosad Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.338
Caspersz, J.1. The defendant-appellant obtained a decree against a third person in a suit to which the plaintiffs-respondents were not parties. The plaintiffs are landlords of the land in controversy and they brought their action to prevent the defendant from taking possession of the holding covered by the defendant's decree against that third person. Both the lower Courts have granted an injunction. It has been found that the holding claimed by the defendant is not a transferable holding and that the plaintiffs as landlords never recognised the defendant as a tenant by receipt of rent or otherwise.2. Now, in second appeal four arguments have been submitted, of which the first embodies a new point which was not discussed in either of the judgments of the Courts below. It is this that the plaintiffs cannot get their injunction because the defendant has not invaded, or threatened to invade, their right to the enjoyment of any property and because the case does not come within Section 54 ...
Golamali Jemadar and ors. Vs. Abdul Karim Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.182
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Comilla admitting an application for review of his judgment. It appears that the plaintiff filed a suit on a bond for Rs. 200. That suit was dismissed by the Munsif and on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff then applied for a review of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge on the alleged ground that, after the dismissal of the appeal, the defendant had made an admission of the truth of the plaintiff's claim in the presence of certain persons on board a steamer between Chandpore and Naraingunge on the 18th January 1908, the day after the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in appeal was passed. The Subordinate Judge admitted the review. He decided that it was a good ground for review and, on taking evidence of the witnesses, he came to the conclusion that the admission by the defendant was proved, and, accordingly for that reason alone, he reversed the decree of dismissal and passed a decree in favour of the pla...
Sheikh Miadhar Vs. Rajani Kanta Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.708
1. In our opinion, the point which has been argued before us here, whether the defendant No. 1 can set up the defence that he has set up in the present suit for possession, is concluded by authority. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant No. 1 for rent. In that suit, the defendant No. 1 said that he was not the tenant of the plaintiff and resisted the claim for rent on that ground. What is more, in his deposition he said that the plaintiff was not his landlord and that he held the land under a third party. On that defence, the plaintiff's first suit was dismissed. He now sues again to recover the land from, the defendant on the ground that the defendant is a trespasser. It has been held in a number of decisions of this Court that the defendant in. such a case is debarred from again pleading his tenancy and claiming to hold possession on that ground. We may refer to the cases of Nilmadhab Bose v. Ananta Ram Bagdi 2 C.W.N. 755. Fayj Dhali v. Aftabuddin Sirdar 6 C.W.N. 575. R...
Durga Prasad Singh Vs. Rajendra NaraIn Bagchi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal293
Doss, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an action to recover arrears of rent due under a maurasi mokurari lease dated the 18th Agrahayan 1301, corresponding to the 3rd December 1894, of underground coal in Mouza Dubari belonging to the plaintiff. The arrears claimed are for the years 1307 to 1312 at the rate of Rs. 2,800 per annum, together with interest for overdue instalments. The defence raised by the defendants is that at their solicitation the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff by a sanad or letter dated the 22nd Agrahayan 1305, corresponding to the 7th December 1898, addressed by the latter to defendant No. 1, reduced the rate of rent from Rs. 7 per bigha reserved in the maurasi mokurari lease to Rs. 5 per bigha, and fixed the annual rental at Rs. 2,000 in lieu of Rs. 2,800, and accepted the reduced rent for the years 1305 and 1306; they further pleaded that in pursuance of the terms of the lease the plaintiff had put them in possession of a certain defined area as being...
Raj Behary Chackravarty Vs. Kalihar Gupta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.336
1. The substantial question of law which calls for decision in this appeal is whether an application presented on the 28th August 1907 for execution of a decree made by this Court on the 28th August 1895 is barred by limitation. In order to explain the circumstances under which this question which has been concurrently answered against the decree-holder by the Courts below, arises, it is necessary to state that the immediately preceding application for execution was made on the 27th August 1904. Prima facie, therefore, the application made on the 28th August 1907 is barred by limitation. The decree-holder, however, relies upon certain proceedings which took place in Court on the 30th August 1904 and contends that the present application is saved from the bar of limitation under article 179 Clause 4 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. The original decree was in favour of two persons, but the application of the 27th August 1904 was presented by one of them alone named Raj Behar...
NobIn Chandra Shaha and ors. Vs. Kula Chandra Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.402
Caspersz, J.1. The substantial question in these second appeals is whether the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act control Sections 30 and 31. These are three sections included within the enhancement of Sections 27 to 37 inclusive.2. The point arises in this way. The plaintiffs sought to enhance the money rent of the defendants, who are occupancy raiyats, on the ground that the rate of lent paid by them was below the prevailing ' rate paid by occupancy raiyats for land of a similar description and with similar advantages in the same village or in neighbouring villages. The last previous enhancement some 12 years ago, was from annas 13 odd to Rs. 1-4 per bigha, as admitted by the plaintiffs, that enhancement obviously contravened the second condition, imposed by Section 29, that the rent must not be enhanced so as to exceed, by more than 2 annas in the rupee, the rent previously paid by the raiyat.3. It is urged by the plaintiffs-appellants that Section 23 must stand by i...
Saibesh Chandra Sarkar and ors. Vs. Kumar Bonowari Mukunda Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.371
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree of the Court below by which the suit of the petitioners for refund of money paid by them to the defendant to prevent the sale of a putni taluk under Regulation VIII of 1819, has been dismissed. It is admitted that the putni originally stood in the name of Matangini the mother of the petitioners. In July 1902 she executed a deed of gift in favour of the petitioner, but they did not take any steps in accordance with the Regulation to have their names registered in the office of the landlord. During the life-time of their mother, they continued to pay rent in her name. Sometime after her death, they made an attempt to pay rent in their own name, but the landlord refused to accept the money. They then made various deposits in Court. The landlord ignored these deposits and proceeded to put up the putni to sale under the Regulation. It was to prevent this impending sale that the money was paid. The case for the petitioners is that money wa...
Kali Charan Nandy Vs. Debendra Nath Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.373
1. We are invited in this Rule to sot aside an older made by the Subordinate Judge in the Court below, for postponement of a sale in execution of a mortgage decree till the 15th March 1910. It appears that the decree nisi was made on the mortgage on the 17th December 1907. On the. 7th August, 1908, the mortgagee made an application in which he prayed that the order absolute might be made under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act and further that the mortgaged properties might be brought to sale. On the 22nd August 1908, the order absolute was passed, and two days later, the properties were directed to be sold on the 17th November. Shortly after this, a common manager appears to have been appointed, in respect of the estate of the mortgagors, under the Bengal Tenancy Act, and on the 18th June 1909 the learned District Judge addressed a letter to the Subordinate Judge, in whose Court execution proceedings were pending, requesting that the sale might be postponed till February 1910...
Rajah Durga Prosad Singh Vs. Rajendra NaraIn Bagchi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.713
1. These two appeals arise out of an action to recover arrears of rent due under a mourasi mokarari lease, dated the 18th Aghran 1301 corresponding to the 3rd December 1894, of underground coal in Mauza Dobari belonging to the plaintiff. The arrears claimed are for the years 1311 and 1312 both inclusive at the rate of Rs. 2,800 per annum together with interest for overdue instalments. The defence raised by the defendants is that at their solicitation the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff by a sanad or letter dated the 22nd Aghran 1305 corresponding to the 7th December 1898, addressed by the latter to defendant No. 1 reduced the rate of rent from Rs. 7 per bigha reserved in the mourasi mokarari lease to Rs. 5 per bigha and fixed the annual rental at Rs. 2,000 in lieu of Rs. 2,800 and accepted the reduced rent for the years 1305 and 1306, they further pleaded that in pursuance of the terms of the lease, the plaintiff had put them in possession of a certain defined area as being t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »