Kolkata Court January 1910 Judgments
Kishore Chandra Banerjee Vs. Ram Charan Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.388
Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit on a mortgage said to have been executed by a lady of the name of Sreemati Bhubenaswari Debi. The plaintiff-appellant is the alleged mortgagee, the first and second defendants are the reversionary heirs in respect of the property and the third defendant is the person to whom they sold the property, said to have been mortgaged, after they had inherited the same by right of reversion.2. The first Court decreed the suit as against all the three defendants. There upon there was an appeal by the third defendant, which proved successful. The lower appellate Court found that there was no consideration for the mortgage and that, therefore, there was no valid mortgage, and decreed the appeal and dismissed the suit.3. No question arises in this appeal as regards the third defendant who has purchased the property, for as regards him it is simply a question of fact, namely, whether there was a valid mortgage by reason of want of consideration. The point which has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Reaz-ud-dIn Shaikh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.251
Sharf-ud-din1. There having been a difference of opinion in this case between Chatterjee and Munro, JJ., it has been referred to me under Section 429, Criminal Procedure Code.2. There are three appellants in the case, viz., (1) Eman-ud-din. (2) Tajar-ud-din and (3) Reaj-ud-din. There were five accused in the trial i.e., the three appellants above-reamed and Alim-ud-din and Nehal-ud-din. These two latter have been acquitted by the Judge and Jury while the remaining threre (the present appellants) have been convicted and sentenced as follows: (1) Reaj-ud-din has been convicted under the latter, portion of Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for 10 years Under the latter portion of Section 304, Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence having been passed under Section 326, Indian Penal Code: (2) Eman-ud-din and (3) Tajar-ud-din have been convicted under Section 324, Indian Penal Code and each sentenced to rigorous im...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Goswami and anr. Vs. Khirode Chandra Bandopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.272
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the lower appellate Court confirming with slight modifications an order pissed by the Court of first instance assessing mesne profits. It appears that, after the preliminary decree in the suit had been passed on the 3rd August 1906, the decree-holder died in the month of September of that year. The application for assessment of mesne profits was made by the heirs of the deceased on the 26th June 1903, no previous application for substitution having been made. It is contended in support of the appeal that the application was barred because the proceedings for determining the amount of wasilut were not proceedings in execution of the decree but merely a continuation of the original suit and the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Puran Chand v. Roy Radha Kishen 19 C. 132 has been relied on in support of this contention. Both the lower Courts have held that the proceedings must be treated as proceedings in execution or proc...
Tag this Judgment!Tulshi Makhania Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.543
1. These are two appeals from orders of the District Judge of Patna in References under the Land Acquisition Act. In the case of Musammat Ramia her claim was that she should get Rs. 1,280 instead of the sum of Rs. 567 awarded to her by the Collector. The learned District Judge finding that the only principle on which he could go on the evidence before him was the rental at so many years' purchase, determined on the basis of the Municipal assessment, took that basis at fifteen years' purchase and awarded Rs. 776-4 in all. We agree with the learned Judge that the only basis upon which compensation can be assessed in this case is on the basis of the Municipal assessment; but we can see no reason why the principles laid down in the unreported case of the Secretary of State v. Baij Nath Goenka 12 C.W.N. cc, which refer to a Municipality in a very similar position to the one in Patna, should not be followed. In that case it was laid down that from the Municipal assessment on the whole area, ...
Tag this Judgment!Adhar Mandal and ors. Vs. Keshab Chandra Mana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.483
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Midnapur dismissing an appeal against an order in certain execution proceedings passed by the Court of first instance, on a review of a previous order made in those proceedings. The learned Judge has held that no appeal lies against the order of review and that, therefore, the appeal to him must be dismissed. We have heard the learned pleaders on both sides and we do not think that the view of the law taken by the learned Judge is correct. The order appealed against to him was, no doubt, passed on a review of a previous order; but whether it was so passed or not, if was an order under Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, relating to the execution of a decree, and as such, was certainly open to appeal. The result, therefore, is that we set aside the judgment and order of the lower appellate Court, decree the appeal and direct that the case be sent back to that Court for re-hearing according to law. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Nandan Missir Vs. Lala Harakh Narayan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.337
1. This is an appeal in a suit ostensibly brought to set aside a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act and also to set aside a sale which was held under the certificate. The learned Judge of the Court, below, holding that the certificate was without jurisdiction and invalid, decided that the plaintiff WHS entitled to have it and all the subsequent proceedings set aside and in that view of the case he thought it was unnecessary to consider the other issues raised. Among the issues was one the decision of which would regulate the question of limitation under Section 15 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, That was the first issue, namely: 'whether the notice under Section 10 of the Public Demands Recovery Act was duly served?' We are asked, on appeal, to deal with the question of limitation and to remand the case to the lower Court for a decision on this issue. We do not think, if we can hold that the sale was bad and void from the beginning and that there was no necessity for...
Tag this Judgment!Kallyanjee Shamjee Vs. Shorrock
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal334,6Ind.Cas.924
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit brought to recover a sum of Rs. 4,455-8 as the price of 469 tons of coal delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants. The delivery is not disputed. But it is pleaded that there has been a breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff, which entitles the defendants to set-off a sum of Rs. 2,079 by way of damages against the sum of Rs. 4,455-8, and on that footing the defendants submit that he is only entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2,376-8, and this they offered to pay and have actually brought into Court.2. The contract out of which the suit arises is contained in bought and sold notes which, though they are not absolutely in identical terms, may, as Mr. Justice Fletcher says, be taken to be identical for the purpose of the present suit. The sold note on which the plaintiff relies is addressed to Messrs. Banerjee & Co., Managing Agents, Kunji Munji & Company, who may be taken as identical with the plaintiff for the...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Ram and anr. Vs. Shakroo Mian and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.277
Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from a small piece of land which upon the findings was settled with them before 1900 by one Gobinda Prosad, a large co-sharer in the mauzah, for Stacking wood and coal. It is said that this settlement was with the consent of the other maliks. Defendants Nos. 7 to 9 who are maliks of 6 annas admit this settlement and do not want an ejectment. The learned Judge has held that the said settlement could not have been made except by a registered pattah and as there is none, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have no title and are trespassers: he also finds that as Gobinda Prosad was one member of a joint family and not the managing member, he could not make the settlement or at least could make a settlement with regard to his own share and as that share, has survived to his co-sharers, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 claiming under settlement made by Gobinda Prosad have no title and are trespassers. I think the l...
Tag this Judgment!C.T. Ambler Vs. Shah Somi Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.545a
1. In this case the land was attached by the Magistrate under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code. Subsequently the petitioner obtained an order in his favour from the hands of the survey authorities under Section 41 of the Bengal Survey Act. He now applies to have the attachment released in his favour and he is entitled to have it so released because, the order of the Collector under the Act is a determination by a competent Court of the rights of the person entitled to the land. It is also a determination of the rights of the parties to the original dispute, since the two parties in the original dispute were also both before the Survey Court. An order has also been made under the Bengal Tenancy Act, the effect of which we need not notice, as the order under the Survey Act has the force of an order of any Civil Court.2. The Rule, therefore, is made absolute the order in question is set aside and the attachment must be released in favour of the petitioner....
Tag this Judgment!Ambler Vs. Sami Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal331
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. In this case the land was attached by the Magistrate under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subsequently the petitioner obtained an order in his favour from the hands of the Survey authorities under Section 41 of the Bengal Survey Act, 1875. He now applies to have the attachment released in his favour, and he is entitled to have it so released, because the order of the Collector as to the land under the Survey Act is a determination by a competent Court of the rights of the person entitled to possession thereof. It is also a determination of the rights of the parties to the original dispute, since the two parties in the original dispute were both before the Survey Court. An order has also been made under the Bengal Tenancy Act, the effect of which we need not notice, as the order under the Survey Act has the force of an order of a Civil Court, The rule therefore is made absolute, the order in question is set aside, and the attachment must be relea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »