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.
Kharda Co. Ld. Vs. Durga Charan Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.187
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made by the Court below under Order 23, Rule 1, Clause 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff sued the defendants for recovery of money. The parties went to trial. Evidence was adduced on both sides and the argument on the side of the defendants was finished. At that stage the plaintiff applied for leave to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The Court thereupon recorded the following order: 'I have gone through the evidence. It is a case in which permission to bring afresh suit should be given. It is accordingly ordered that the plaintiff be allowed to withdraw from the suit with permission to bring a fresh suit unless barred. The plaintiff do pay the costs of the defendant in this Court.' The legality of this order is now called in question.2. Rule 1, Sub-rule (2) of Order 23 provides that where the Court is satisfied, (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal de...
Mohunt Anand Das and ors. Vs. Ram Perkash Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.69
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff has obtained a decree in his favour declaring that he is entitled to be and that he is to be the Mohunt of an Asthal in succession to defendant No. 1 who is the only defendant we need consider in this matter, and that defendant No. 1 is to get an allowance of Rs. 12.000 a year for, his life. An appeal has been preferred against this decree, and on an application for execution being made it has been ordered that a receiver should be appointed and certain directions have been given as to how the receiver is to deal with the property in question.2. Against this order the present appeal is lodged, and the first point that is made before us is that no appeal lies. The order, however, is made under Order XL, Rule 1. The appointment of the receiver has been agreed to but certain ancillary orders as regards the disposal of the rents and profits of the property have been made under Rule 1, paragraph (d), and it is argued on behalf of th...
Nathuni Ram Vs. Raja Paresh Nath Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.436
1. This is a suit for khas possession which has been decreed by the Munsif and the lower appellate Court. The defendant appeals.2. The plaintiff's allegation was that the defendant was a non-occupancy raiyat of the lands under the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act, 1879. He came into occupation in 1301 and, in 1309, the plaintiffs gave him notice to quit. The suit was instituted in 1314.3. The learned Judicial Commissioner has held that, after the service of the notice to quit, the defendant became a trespasser. The defence is that the defendant acquired occupancy-rights.4. Under Section 6 of the Act, every raiyat, who has cultivated or held land for a period of twelve years, has a right of occupancy in that land. The defendant in this case, at the time of the institution of the suit, had certainly held the lands in dispute for a period of twelve years, and it remains to be decided whether after 1309 he was a raiyat. The term 'raiyat' is defined as meaning primarily a pers...
Nimai Chand Addya Vs. Golam Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal179
Mookerjee and Vincent, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the decree in a suit to enforce two mortgage securities executed by the first defendant on the 10th May 1895 in favour of one Ishan Chandra Addya, now represented by the plaintiffs-appellants. One of these bonds was for Rs. 1,500 and the other for Rs. 1,000. No question arises in the present appeal as to the first of these two bonds. As regards the second bond, one of the properties included in it was covered by a deed of waqf executed on the 29th August 1862, under which the mortgagor was made a mutawalli. The question in controversy between the parties relates to the validity of the mortgage in respect of the waqf property. The circumstances under which the waqf property was given in mortgage are not disputed. The properties included in the deed of waqf were zemindaries liable to be partitioned under the Estates Partition Act. In 1894, one of the co-sharers in the property commenced proceedings under that Act. The estate wa...
Baraik Badri Sahi and ors. Vs. Chamra Uraon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.431
1. This was a suit for recovery of certain lands said to be the majhahas land of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged in paragraph 8 of their plaint that the disputed land was in their personal occupation and had all along been so held by them and their predecessors-in-interest and zurpeshgidars; that the defendants had no. concern with the disputed land, nor was the disputed land ever settled with them, but that they nevertheless had cut the paddy crops, which had been raised by the plaintiffs. On this act of dispossession the suit was instituted for khas possession.2. The suit was decreed by the Munsif who found that the defendants were mere trespassers, having no right or title to the land in suit. The learned Judicial Commissioner, however, decreed the appeal and dismissed the suit.3. Three points have been taken by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants in this appeal.4. The first is that the Judicial Commissioner has wrongly placed the onus on the plaintiffs. It does...
Nemai Chand Adhya and anr. Vs. Mir Golam Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.353
1. This appeal is directed against the decree in a suit to enforce two, mortgage securities executed by the first defendant on the 10th May 1895 in favour of one Ishan Chandra Addya, now represented by the plaintiffs appellants. One of these bonds was for Rs. 1,500 and the other for Rs. 1,000. No question arises in the present appeal as to the first of these two bonds. As regards the second bond, one of the properties included in it, was covered by a deed of waqf executed on the 29th August 1862, under which the mortgagor was made a mutwalli The question in controversy between the parties relates to the validity of the mortgage in respect of the waqf property. The circumstances under which the waqf property was given in mortgage are not disputed. The properties included in the deed of waqf were zamindaris liable to be partitioned under the Estates' Partition Act. In 189-4, one of 'the co-sharers in the property commenced proceedings under that Act. The estate was partitioned and the wa...
Harendra Nath Avasti Vs. Shibo Sundari Debi Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.378
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff, Harendra Nath Avasti, against his adoptive mother Siva Sundari Dbeya Chowdhurani to establish his claim to the property of his adoptive father, Tarak Nath Avasti. The plaintiff claimed that his title to all the property movable and immovable left by Tarak Nath Avasti might be declared, that the will of Tarak Nath Avasti which purported to create life-interest in favour of the defendant and postpone the plaintiff's interest might be held to be invalid and inoperative; that it might be declared that defendant had by her conduct forfeited her right, if any, to hold possession of the property. The plaintiff also asked for an account, a Receiver and other reliefs. The defendant denied the adoption and in other respects resisted the plaintiff's claim. The learned District Judge has passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring his title to the property subject to the life-interest of the defendant, but in other respects, has thrown...
Asutosh Deb Sarkar Vs. Apurba Kumar Deb Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.370
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made by the Court of first instance, by which the matter in controversy between the parties has been referred to arbitration. It appears that a Commissioner was appointed to examine a witness in the case. On the 25th July last when he went to examine the witness, the parties presented to him a petition in which they agreed to refer the matters in controversy to the arbitration of the pleader for the plaintiff. On the following day, the Commissioner returned his commission unexecuted and filed the petition in Court. On the 29th July the plaintiff, with the consent of the defendant, made an application to the Court in which it was stated that the arbitrator had declined to act without fees and that time would be necessary to fix the amount of fees to be paid to him. The case was accordingly adjourned till the following day. The plaintiff then made an application by which he prayed that two other arbitrators might be added so that the m...
Sital Das Babaji and anr. Vs. Pertap Chunder Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.408
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is an image of Lukshmi Narain Jew established in the town of Naraingunj in the District of Dacca and the properties movable and immovable appertaining to the endowment of that diety. The plaintiffs-respondents claim to be the representatives of the founder and they commenced this action for recovery of possession upon the allegation that the line of mohunts came to an end and that the defendants were trespassers in unlawful occupation of the endowed properties. The first two defendants who alone substantially resisted the claim denied the title of the plaintiffs as representatives of the founder and alleged that they were themselves the lawfully appointed mohunts of the endowment. One of these defendants has died during the pendency of the present litigation and we are now concerned only with the case of the first defendant who is the appellant before this Court. The other defendants were brought on the record ...
Faiz Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal27,5Ind.Cas.495
Coxe and Ryves, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 164 of the Assam Labour and Emigration Act, 1901, for inducing one Lal Bahadur Kurmi to emigrate from Arrah, in contravention of the notification published under the Act, prohibiting all persons from recruiting, inducing, engaging or assisting any persons to emigrate from any district in Bengal. The petitioner obtained this Rule from this Court on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence of the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the facts found did not constitute the offence of which the petitioner had been convicted.2. It appears that the accused induced Lal Bahadur to leave Cawnpore in order to go to Fiji to work. On the way 'they stopped at Arrah, and then the accused told Lal Bahadur that he would have to go to Sylhet, and placed him in a train in charge of a sardar for the purpose of ultimately going to that place.3. It has been argued on behalf of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »