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.
Gopi Krishna Mandal Vs. Ram Lal Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.524
1. In this appeal we are invited by the judgment-debtor as also by the decree-holders to modify an order of the Court below in the course of proceedings in execution of a mortgage decree made on the 4th August 1904. Shortly after the decree, one of the mortgaged properties was sold for arrears of revenue and a sum of over Rs. 5,000 was deposited in the Collectorate as surplus sale proceeds. On the 1st October 1904, upon the application of the plaintiff, this sum was attached. On the 11th November following, the mortgage decree nisi was made absolute. Applications for execution were made from time to time, but we are not concerned with them now. In the course of the present execution proceedings, the judgment-debtors objected that the application was barred by limitation and that the decree-holders were not entitled to claim interest after the date fixed in the decree for redemption of the mortgage properties. The decree-holder contended on the other hand that these objections were unfo...
Trilochan Neogi Vs. Ibrahim Dunan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.158
1. This is an appeal in a suit brought by the plaintiff who sought to recover possession of a certain plot of land on declaration of his Jote right to the same.2. The plaintiff's document of title is a lease bearing date the 17th March 1896 granted by the manager of the estate of a certain lunatic appointed under Act XXXV of 1858. In that lease the manager conferred an ordinary Jote right on the lessee; he did not specify any term. There was a covenant for cultivation, and provision was made for ousting the tenant from the land in certain contingencies.3. The defendant, however, set up a lease of later date granted to him by one of the sons of the lunatic called Jogendra Narain Mujumdar.4. On a consideration of the respective titles of the parties and admissions and the pleadings, the Court of first instance held that the plaintiff had a Jote right to the land; that the defendant entered on the land as plaintiff's bargadar; and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession.5. W...
Mahammad Zeaulla Miah and ors. Vs. Sukliannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.352
1. This is an appeal in a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants, who may be described as darpatindars, to recover arrears of rent for the years 1309 to 1312 from the defendants who possess a sepatni interest in the mahal.2. The facts of this litigation are hardly in dispute. The predecessors of the plaintiffs obtained a darpatni lease in the year 1295, the rent reserved being Rs. 1,333-8-9. The darpatni interest was sold and purchased by the plaintiffs in execution of a rent decree obtained by Jawaherkumari Debi, as patnidar and the sale certificate empowered the auction purchaser to annul all sorts of encumbrances. On the basis of this sale certificate, and also, it appears, having regard to the durpatni patta of the 24th Bysak 1295, wherein the lessee was forbidden to carve out any seputni interest, the plaintiffs sought to cancel the seputni lease set up by the defendants; and in accordance with that intention, they served a notice upon them. The defendants, however, declined to...
EnamuddIn Jamadar Vs. Abdul Jabbar Duftri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.489
1. The sole point in controversy between the parties to this appeal is, whether an execution sale held on the 14th September 1907, is vitiated by fraud and irregularity? The Court of first instance found on the evidence that the judgment-debtor had satisfactorily established grounds under Sections 244 and 311 of the Code of 1882, which justified a reversal of the sale. Upon appeal, the learned District Judge did not go into the merits but held that as the judgment-debtor had, in an application made on the 9th September 1907 under Section 305, Civil Procedure Code, admitted that the sale proclamation had been published, he could not now go behind such admission and contend that the sale-proclamation had been suppressed. In this view the District Judge allowed the appeal and directed the sale to be confirmed. In our opinion, there is no doubt that the order of the District Judge cannot be supported. The application of the 9th September has been placed before us. The judgment-debtor merel...
Shaikh Hazir Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.315
1. This is an appeal by three persons, Sheikh Hazir, Sheikh Ali Hossein and Shamser Ali from a conviction in a trial before the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymen singh and a jury, of offences under Sections 148 and 325/149, Indian Penal Code. The case against the appellants was that they were concerned in a riot in which a man was killed. We need not refer to the details of the case; and it is enough to say that the defence set up was that the complainant's party were the aggressors and that such of the appellants as were present on the occasion acted in self-defence. The jury disregarded this plea and we have no jurisdiction to review that decision. But it is alleged that the Judge misdirected the jury as follows: The first appellant Shaikh Hazir had laid before the Police information embodying a counter-complaint, and the Judge's note of his charge to the jury on this matter is as follows. 'The defence. The counter information (read) may he taken to amount to a plea of self-defence....
Bhabanath Chakravarti and ors. Vs. Peary Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.544
1. This is a rule to show cause why an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, made in favour of the first party, should not be set aside on the grounds that the parties to the dispute are co-sharers and that the order is inoperative owing to a previous decision of a Civil Court. The property in dispute is a four annas share of a jalkar, which consists of 24 khals. From the findings in the order and the undisputed facts it seems that a body of men known as the Mejozilla, or the syndicate company is entitled to a four annas share in the jalkar, and that the petitioner is entitled under them, or under them and other persons who may be found to be entitled on an appeal now pending. The first party say that they are in possession of the whole jalkar and set up a claim to be entitled to the whole of the four annas. They failed to make out this claim in recent litigation. They have appealed as to an one anna four pice share, but it is found that, they surrendered a two annas eight ...
Nando Lal Neogy Vs. Bejoy Chandra Chatterjee, Overseer Garalia Municip ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1910
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.518
1. In this case a Rule has been granted to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the facts found disclose no ground for holding the passage to be a public road.2. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 217 of the Bengal Municipal Act of encroaching on a road. The facts of the case are that a road was made over his land to a trenching ground. This was used for some time and kept in repairs by the neighbouring mill. The trenching ground was subsequently closed, and it is not clear that after that the road was used. It was, however, named by the Municipality which called it 'Mogra Lane,' From these circumstances the Magistrate draws the conclusion that the, petitioner intended the road to be a public one, which, would cause his act in permitting it to be used to be a dedication to the public; We cannot take this view. The road was originally used for a temporary purpose, and we do not see that there is any f...
Promotha Nath Mitra Vs. Rakhal Das Addy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.546
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made under Order I, Rule 10, Clause (8), of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, by which the name of the petitioner was directed to be struck out on the ground that he had been improperly joined as a party to a Land Acquisition proceeding pending in the Court below.2. It appears that on the 26th May 1906, the usual declaration was made under the Act for the acquisition of the disputed properly. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 were served on the 1st September following. In the proceedings before the Collector, the parties at the beginning were the petitioner Manmatha Nath Mitter and the opposite party Rakhal Das Addy. On the 23rd September 1908, the estate which comprises the disputed property, was sold for arrears of revenue and was purchased by the petitioner Promotbo Nath Mitter. On the 17th. October 1903, Promotho Nath applied to the Collector to stay proceedings till the confirmation of ...
Nistarini Dasi Vs. Kazim Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.258
1. We are invited in this appeal to set aside an order of the Court below by which execution has been allowed to proceed on the basis of a decree in a mortgage suit. The decree nisi appears to have been made so far back as the 22nd July, 1896, but no application was made for order absolute till the 80th June, 1906. The order absolute was actually made on the 28th August of that year. Subsequently, the decree-holder took out execution of the decree and the mortgage property was sold. An application was then made by the representatives of the judgment-debtor to set aside the sale; at the same time, they applied also to set aside the decree nisi as well as the order absolute both of which were alleged to have been made ex parte. On the 10th August, 1907, by consent of parties, the application to set aside the decree nisi and the order absolute was withdrawn, but the execution sale was reversed. On the same day, the decree-holder again applied for execution of the decree, but this proceedi...
Ram Lal Singh and ors. Vs. Maharaja Paswati Bejoypati Gajpati
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.146
Harington, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Shahabad, dismissing an appeal from the order of the Munsif.2. The question arises on the execution of a, decree obtained by the respondents in a mortgage suit instituted against the appellants on a mortgage executed by their father. On an application by the respondents (mortgagees) that a decree should be passed against the appellants as heirs and representatives of their father under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Munsif held that the applicant could not get a decree against the person and other properties of the judgment-debtors but that he was entitled to a decree against 'the assets' of the mortgagor which might be in the hands of Ins sons.3. When this decree was executed, an objection was made that the property against which it was sought to execute the decree was ancestral property which had come into the hands of the appellants by survivorship and was not, therefore, assets which could...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »