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.
Kalu Mirza Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal91
Coxe, J.1. The petitioners in this case have obtained a Rule in the following terms: 'Let the record be sent for, and a Rule issue upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order binding down the petitioners for good, behaviour should not be set aside, or why such other order in the matter should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit, on the ground that the case of the petitioners was not separately dealt with by the Sessions Judge and the Additional Magistrate in accordance with law, and why the fitness of the sureties tendered by the petitioners should not be considered by the Magistrate himself under Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code; and let a Rule also issue on the District Magistrate to show cause why the petitioners should not be released on the securities tendered for good behaviour, and meanwhile, pending the hearing of the Rule, let the petitioners be admitted to bail for their appearance whenever wanted to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.'...
isri Prosad and ors. Vs. Rai Gunga Prosad Singh Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.311
1. In this case the appellant is the plaintiff in a mortgage suit in which the respondents are defendants being the sons of the purchaser of two of the mortgaged properties. They need not be distinguished from their father and have been referred to throughout this appeal as defendant No. 4.2. The suit was dismissed in the lower Court on the grounds that, the attestation of the mortgage-deed has not been proved and that the mortgage was not true and bona fide.' Both points have been urged before us by the respondent. Whatever we may think of the first the second is that on which the respondent seeks, to establish his claim in the first place. We will, therefore, deal with it first.3. The bond was executed on the 23rd August 1893 by Musammat Sharbat Koer as guardian of Balmakund Das. He was the son of Janki Das who died before 1883 when Musammat Sharbat Koer became guardian, and who carried on some kind of banking or money-lending business. This seems to have failed and Balmakund at all ...
Kalu Mirza and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.29
Coxe, J.1. The Petitioners in this case hare obtained a Rule in the following terms: Let the record be sent for, and a Rule issued upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order binding down the petitioners for good behaviour should not be set aside, or why such other order on the matter should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit, on the ground that the case of the petitioners was hot separately dealt with by the Sessions Judge and the Additional Magistrate in accordance with law, and why the sureties tendered by the petitioners should not be considered by the Magistrate himself under Section 122, Cr.P.C. and let a Rule also issue on the District Magistrate to show cause why the petitioners should not be released on the securities tendered for good behaviour, and meanwhile pending the hearing of the Rule, let the petitioner, be admitted to bail for their appearance whenever wanted to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.'2. It will be seen that there are three ...
Jagat Tarini Dasi and on Her Death Her Heirs and Legal Representatives ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.324
Appeal No. 118.1. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is, whether it is competent to the appellants, who are representatives of an assignee of a decree for rent, to carry on proceedings in execution of the decree initiated by the original decree-holder. It appears that one Nobin Chandra Ghose held under Jagat Tarini Dasi a putni which had been created on the 3rd May 1874. On the 28th May 1895 Nobin Chandra created a durputni in favour of Kishori Lal Ghose. The latter obtained a decree for rent against the respondents on the 26th January 1903 and applied for execution thereof on the 26th January 1906. Meanwhile the putnidar had defaulted to pay rent to the zemindar who sued him, obtained a decree and in proceedings in execution thereof purchased the putni on the 15th August 1906. Subsequently on the 23rd December 1906 the zemindar, Jagat Tarini Dasi, the auction-purchaser of the putni, served a notice upon the durpatnidar under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and...
Maigar Singh and ors. Vs. Joti Lal Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.351
1. The case in which this appeal arises is as follows: On the 21st November 1889, one Mohabir Singh mortgaged a portion of a certain mouzah to one Jagi Lal for Rs. 250. On the 8th October 1890 one Jugdeo Narain executed a mortgage relating to 4 mouzahs, including the one mortgage before to Jagi Lal for the sum of Rs. 598. This mortgage was executed and registered and eventually came into the possession of the mortgagee. A question has been raised at a subsequent period as to whether any consideration had passed. After this on the 16th February 1891, Jugdeo Narain again mortgaged two of the four mouzahs in question including the subject-matter of the first mortgage to the plaintiffs for Rs. 275. So matters stood until either July or September in 1893 when Government revenue falling into arrears the property was put up for sale and was purchased by one Joti Lal Sahu, defendant No. 1 in the present suit and the only defendant who has entered appearance. Under these circumstances the plain...
Maharaja Parbhu NaraIn Singh Bahadur Vs. Babu Beni Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.779
1. This case arises as follows: The plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 5-8 with others held a 15 annas share in a certain mouzah. On the 30th April 1893, the defendants Nos. 5-8 mortgaged their share to defendant No. 9. Subsequently the whole 15 annas share was brought to sale on non-payment of Government revenue, and was brought by the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1-3 or their representatives in September 1896. As the sale was of a portion only of the estate the prior incumbrance of defendant No. 9 was not avoided, and he accordingly brought a mortgage suit on the 20th September 1898. He obtained a decree which we shall have to refer to again. Under this decree the property was brought to sale and sold to the decree-holders and the sale was confirmed on the 4th of November 1902. On the 28th February 1903 the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,782-3 to the decree-holder in respect of his decree and an order was made: 'On both sides' application, the sale is set aside, and the case dismissed on full ...
Bowen Vs. Bowen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal1018,4Ind.Cas.699a
Harington, J.1. This is an application by the wife against whom a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage has been made for alimony until the decree is made absolute.2. The husband has tendered the amount due up to the decree nisi and says that, inasmuch as the wife has been found guilty of misconduct, she has forfeited her right to receive any alimony subsequent to the decree nisi.3. Alimony has been paid by the husband to the wife since the institution of the suit: that payment was made in pursuance of a private arrangement between the parties, no application was made in Court in respect of it.4. The husband relies on the case of Dunn v. Dunn (1), in which it was held in England that where alimony pendente lite had been granted to a wife in a petition for divorce the right to such alimony ceased upon the wife's being found guilty of adultery.5. But in this country the period during which alimony is payable is regulated by Section 36 of the Divorce Act, which provides that it shall co...
Lakshmi Narayan Maiti and anr. Vs. Gopal Chandra Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.443
Caspersz, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the plaintiff decree-holder to recover the balance of his mortgage debt, otherwise than out of the property sold, under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The Court of first instance refused that application, relying on the case of Ram Ranjan Chakravarti v. Indra Narain Dass 33 C. 890 : 10 C.W.N. 862. The lower appellate Court has construed that authority differently and has allowed the application.3. In second appeal, by the defendants judgment-debtors, the contention is that, inasmuch as the plaintiff consented to reduce his security to 2 bighas 16 cottahs only, he was not entitled to proceed against any other property of the judgment-debtors under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act.4. The facts are these: The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 795 on the basis of a mortgage-deed, executed in favour of his assignor the defendant No. 6, in which some. 16 bighas of land were hypothecated. When the suit ca...
Jadunandan Koer Vs. Ramjiban Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.454
1. In this case leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council has been granted and the final order for admission made, but the transcript of the record has not yet been transmitted to England. It now appears that Harolal Chowdhury, Joygobindo Chowdhury, Newalal Chowdhury and Manilal Chowdhury some of the respondents in the appeal, have died. Harolal is alleged to have died on the 8th January, 1908. Joygobindo on the 23rd January, 1908, Newalal on the 18th January 1908, and Manilal in December 1908. No steps in this Court have been taken up, till recently, by the appellants to bring the legal representatives of these respondents on the record. But while proceedings were pending before the District Judge who under the orders of this Court, enquired into the sufficiency of the security bond tendered by the appellants, the matter was brought to the notice of the appellants on the 9th August. 1908, and they got the legal representatives substituted for the purpose of the enquiry before the Dist...
Samarendra Chandra Deb Vs. Birendra Kishore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.456
1. In this case the order for final admission has been made by this Court but the transcript of the record has not yet been sent to England. The respondent has now applied that the appeal may be directed to be taken off the file or in the alternative that the petition may be transmitted to their Lordships of the Judicial Committee for disposal. The circumstances under which this application has been made may be shortly stated. The plaintiff who is the appellant before the Judicial Committee sued the defendant who was then the duly appointed Jubaraj of the Gadi of Hill Tipperah for declaration that he himself by virtue of his previous appointment as Rom Thakur was entitled to the succession after the demise of the then Raja and that the defendant had no right of succession thereto. One of the objections taken to the maintenance of the suit was, that it was not competent to the Municipal Courts of British India to entertain a suit of this character in which the validity of an act of Stat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »