Kolkata Court January 1910 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.
Pura Sundari Dasi Vs. Bijraj Nopani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal362
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. There is no dispute as to the facts in this ease: the question is, whether the conveyance under which the defendants claim, displaced the title the plaintiff would otherwise have possessed.2. The plaintiff claims a moiety of the property in suit subject to a charge of Rs. 20 a month, and her title is made out as follows: Premchand Bysack died on the 23rd of June 1886 leaving a will, whereby he left his house, No. 8 Sobharam By sack's street, to his daughter Sreemati Katyani Dasi absolutely subject to two charges of Its. 20 each. Probate, of this will was granted on the 12th of July 1887 to the executors Shambhunath Bysack, Hemendranath Bysack, and Ratan Lal Bysack. Sreemati Katyani Dasi died on the 8th of April 1891, leaving her surviving five sons, including Hemendra Nath Bysack, and three daughters, Maya Sundari Dasi, who was then married, and Kanak Manjari Dasi and the plaintiff, who were then unmarried and minors.3. On the 6th of October 1888 Shambhu Nat...
Sarbesh Chandra Basu and ors. Vs. Hari Dayal Singh Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.236
1. The substantial question of law which has been argued in these appeals relates to the right of the plaintiffs-appellants to set aside two consent decrees made in previous litigations between the parties to the present suits. The circumstances under which the plaintiffs attack these decrees are somewhat complicated, but in so far as it is necessary to state them for our present purpose, they do not admit of any doubt or dispute. Lot Gopinagore constitutes a patni taluk of which one-half was owned by one Brindaban Chandra Bose, now represented by the plaintiffs, and the other half by a family of Singhs, now represented by the defendants. In 1873 the patni rents fell into arrears, whereupon the predecessors of the defendants saved the property from sale, and, under Section 13 of Regulation VIII of 1819, tained possession thereof as mortgagees. In 1904 the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants for recovery of possession of their half share of the patni taluk upon declara...
Ambika Charan Mondal Vs. Ram Charan Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.385
Chatterjee, J.1. The plaintiffs purchased an occupancy holding belonging to one Kristo Das Bairagi in execution of a money-decree on the 20th July 1903, and obtained symbolical possession on the 8th December 1903 but when they went to take actual possession in 1311 they were resisted by the defendants. The defence was that the holding was not transferable according to local custom and, therefore, nothing-had passed to the plaintiffs, that only 4 annas of the holding belonging to Kristo Das could have passed and not the 8 annas belonging to plaintiff and 4 annas belonging to Narain and that the suit should be dismissed as Narain the owner of 4 annas was not a party. The Court of first instance held that the share of Kristo Das was only 4 annas, that occupancy holdings were not transferable in the locality and nothing passed to the plaintiffs and that the suit was bad for the non-joinder of the 4 annas co-sharer and dismissed the suit.2. The learned Subordinate Judge, on appeal, has reve...
Pura Sundari Dasi Vs. Biraj Nopani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.893
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. There is no dispute as to the facts in this case; the question is, whether the conveyance under which the defendants claim, displaced the title the plaintiff would otherwise have possessed.2. The plaintiff claims a moiety of the property in suit subject to a charge of Rs. 20 a month, and her title is made out as follows: Premchand Bysack died on the 23rd of June 1886 leaving a Will, whereby he left his house, No. 8 Sobharam Bysack's Street, to his daughter Sreemati Katyani Dasi absolutely, subject to two charges of Rs. 20 each. Probate of this Will was granted on the 12th of July 1887 to the executors, Shambhunath Bysack, Hemendranath Bysack, and Ratan Lal Bysack. Sreemati Katyani Dasi died on the 8th of April 1891, leaving her surviving five sons, including Hemendra Nath Bysack, and three daughters, Maya Sundari Dasi, who was then married, and Kanak Manjari Dasi and the plaintiff, who were then unmarried and minors.2. On the 6th of October 1888, Shambhu Nath. ...
Brijratan Vs. Jaynarain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal649
Chttty, J.1. These are two rules obtained by the defendants in suit No. 85 of 1909, calling on the plaintiffs to show cause (i) why the decree in the suit should not be amended by inserting a clause as to the payment by the plaintiffs to the defendants of interest accumulated on certain Government promissory notes up to the 22nd September 1909and (ii) why the execution issued in this suit against the effects of the defendants should not be set aside and the attached property released. The facts are shortly as follows: The plaintiffs and the defendants are members of a Marwari family, and the matters at issue between them were in respect of the various businesses carried on by members of the family in partnership. In the early part of 1909 the present suit was filed in the names of the plaintiffs, who are minors, by Musammat Gota, their mother and next friend. Buldeo Dass, father of the present defendant Jaynarain, and grandfather of the two minor defendants, was the original defendant....
Safdar Ali Vs. Kishun Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.241
1. This was a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif declining to entertain the application of the petitioner on the ground that the same was barred by Rule 103, Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code, should not be set aside.2. It appears that the petitioner's application in an execution matter was dismissed for default at 6 o'clock in the morning in the beginning of the hot weather sittings. On the allegation that he was not aware of the change in the hour of sittings of the Court, the petitioner applied to the Munsif for a re-hearing of the proceedings. The Munsif dismissed the petition on the ground that the application for re-hearing was barred by Order XXI, Rule 103, and that the petitioner had no other course left to him than that of bringing a regular suit.3. On appeal to the District Judge it was held that there was no appeal as the original suit was not open to appeal.4. Before us it is contended for the objector that Section 141 of the new Ci...
Brijratan and ors. Vs. JaynaraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.876
Chitty, J.1. These are two rules obtained by the defendants in Suit No. 85 of 1909, calling on the plaintiff to show cause (i) why the decree in the suit should not be amended by inserting a clause as to the payment by the plaintiffs to the defendants of interest accumulated on certain Government promissory-notes up to the 22nd September 1909, and (ii) why the execution issued in this suit against the effects of the defendants should not be set aside and the attached property released. The facts are shortly as follows:--The plaintiffs and the defendants are members of a Marwari family, and the matters at issue between them were in respect of the various businesses carried on by members of the family in partnership. In the early part of 1909, the present suit was filed in the names of the plaintiffs, who are minors, by Musammat Gota, their mother and next friend, Buldeo Dass, father of the present defendant Jaynarain, and grandfather of the two minor defendants, was the original defenda...
Sarat Chandra Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Iswar Chandra Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.397
Chatterjee, J.1. Purha and Paban, two brothers, held 7 highas of jote at a jama of Rs. 9. In 1292, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who were four annas landlords took from Purna a qabuliat in respect of 5th of the land, namely 1 bigha 15 cottas oat of the 7 bighas, the boundaries given being, those of the 7 bighas.2. It is contended that this created the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, the 16 annas landlords in relation to Purna and, therefore, when defendants Nos. 1 to 3 obtained a decree for arrears against Puma's son and sold the said land, 1 bigha, 15 cottas and themselves made the purchase, they acquired an indefeasible interest in the land against which, the title of the plaintiffs, arising under a purchase in execution of a decree on a mortgage prior to their decree and purchase, could not prevail. The fact of the boundaries being that of the entire holding, is I think, a settler and the defendants must be considered as fractional co-sharers. This is clear from the definition of the word holding ...
Official Trustee of Bengal Vs. Kumudini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal387,6Ind.Cas.973
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the Original Side of this Court in the Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, the judgment complained of being one passed by Mr. Justice Fletcher, who directed that the grant of probate of the Will of one Manick Lal Seal, deceased, to the Official Trustee be revoked, and that the grant of probate issued to the Official Trustee of Bengal for the time being be brought into the Registry of this Court. There is no dispute as to the facts, and the only question is whether this is a case where the Court, under Section 50 of the Probate and Administration Act, ought to revoke the probate that has been granted. This probate was granted by Mr. Justice Chitty on the 18th of November 1907, his order being that probate of the Will be granted to the Official Trustee of Bengal: the probate actually granted was expressed to the Official Trustee of Bengal for the time being. At the time when the application was made Mr. Gray was Official Trustee, but h...
Har Lal Raut and anr. Vs. Jai Lal Raut and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.291
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of properties purchased by the plaintiff under a deed of sale from an uncle of the defendants.2. The learned Munsif in the Court of first instance held that the whole transaction was mala fide and was nothing but a hoax which the plaintiff assisted by his irresponsible witnesses intended to bring into existence by taking unfair and undue advantage of Jagatman's extreme old age and shattered state of health. The Munsif, therefore, found that the plaintiff's title deed was not proved and that he was not entitled to recover possession of the properties, and in view of that finding, the Munsif found it unnecessary to decide the other issues. But he expressly stated with regard to the other point, with which we are concerned in this appeal, that he had no hesitation in holding that the said Jagatman was joint in mess and business with defendants till his death.3. Now, the learned District Judge, on appeal, has considered it sufficien...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »