Kolkata Court February 1910 Judgments
Shelley Bonnerjee Vs. Raj Chandra Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal552
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This case comes before us by way of second appeal, and it arises out of a suit which has the appearance of an interpleader proceeding. The plaintiff is the tenant of the lands to which the suit relates, and the defendants may be divided into two groups-On the one side being ranged defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 8, whom I will for brevity call the Shovabazar party, and on the other side defendants Nos. 3 to 7, whom I will describe for brevity as the Chaudhuri party. The plaintiff's grievance is that having, as he says, passed two kabuliyats, one in favour of the Shovabazar party and the other in favour of the Chaudhuri party, he finds himself in this predicament of being sued on both. This he considers gave him title to come to the Court, and he has brought this suit praying 'that the Court may be pleased to declare which defendant has what right in which of the disputed lands, and in what right the plaintiff holds which of the said lands, under whom, and for what ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. K.S. Bonnerjee Vs. Raj Chandra Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.577
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This case comes before as by way of second appeal, and it arises out of a suit which has the appearance of an inter-pleader proceeding. The plaintiff is the tenant of the lands to which the suit relates and the defendants may be divided into two groups. On the one side being ranged defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 8 whom I will for brevity call the Shavabazar party, and on, the other side, defendants Nos. 3 to 7, whom I will describe for brevity as the Chowdhary party. The plaintiff's grievance is that having, as he says, passed two qabuliabs, one in favour of the Shavabazar party, and the other in favour of the Chowdhary party, he finds himself in the predicament of being sued on both. This he considers gave him title to come to the Court and he has brought this suit praying 'that the Court may be pleased to declare which defendant has what right in which of the disputed lands, and in what right the plaintiff holds which of the said lands under whom and for what amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Fanindra NaraIn Roy Vs. Sheikh Badr-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.581
1. The only question, which was decided by the lower appellate Court and which has been raised before us in this appeal, is whether the mortgage-deed on which the plaintiff has brought his suit is or is not a valid document which would entitle him to sue to recover the debt covered by that document. Both the lower Courts have held that the mortgage bond is an invalid document and is not enforcible, the reason being that the consideration for the document was one which, under the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act, must be regarded as unlawful.2. It appears that the present plaintiff purchased certain properties belonging to the ancestors of the defendants at a sale in execution of a Civil Court decree. Afterwards, there was an arrangement between the plaintiff and the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants by which the plaintiff relinquished his right, under his purchase, to the properties on consideration of receiving from the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants t...
Tag this Judgment!Tarini Charan Banerjee Vs. Chandra Kumar Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.193
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree made by the Court of appeal below in concurrence with the Court of first instance by which a suit for rent has been dismissed. The properties, in respect of which rent is claimed by the plaintiff, consist of one taluk and separate lands in another taluk. In respect of the former of these lands, the provisions of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act are applicable, while in respect of the latter those of Section 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act are applicable. The superior landlords are the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 8 to 14, to whose predecessor Goluk Nath Banerjeo, the properties originally belonged. The plaintiff is entitled to a third share, the defendant. No. 8 to another third, and the defendants Nos. 9 to 14 to the remaining third share. It appears that upon the death of Goluk Nath Banerjee, he was succeeded by his three sons Tarini, the plaintiff, Durga Charan, the predecessor of defendant No. 8 and Rajani, the predeces...
Tag this Judgment!Janoki Nath Chakravarti Vs. Kali Kumar Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.561
1. The auction-purchaser of a maurasi ryoti holding obtained this Rule in which we are invited to set aside the order of the Munsif allowing the opposite party, Hamid Ali, to make a deposit under Section 310A (now Order XXI, Rule 89) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The deposit having been made, the sale of the holding has been set aside. The question is whether Hamid Ali can be deemed to be entitled to make such a deposit.2. The facts are that Hamid Ali was the original tenant: Kali Kumar purchased the holding in execution of a rent decree obtained by the landlords against Hamid Ali, and obtained possession of the lands of the holding except the homestead portion which, in spite of the sale, Hamid Ali retained in his possession. Kali Kumar sued Hamid Ali for possession of the homestead. That suit was dismissed for default. Kali Kumar then applied under Section 103 of the old Code of Civil Procedure for a re-hearing. That application was, however, rejected. The result of this litigation...
Tag this Judgment!Mabulla Sardar and ors. Vs. Hemangini Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.629
1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated the 26th of July 1909, should not be set aside. That order purported to be made under Order XXIII, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court granting the plaintiff permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on certain terms indicated in the order. This was an order passed by the Court in appeal after the plaintiff's suit had been dismissed, and from the petition which has been placed before us it appears that that suit had been dismissed on the ground that there was no evidence on several matters. The decision in Kharda Co. v. Durga Charan 11 C.L.J. 45 :5 Ind. Cas. 187, shows that Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) must be read in connection with Clause (a) and with the limitations Clause (a) suggests, and so reading it, it is clear that it is not within the jurisdiction of a Court of appeal to grant the permission on the terms which have been-approv...
Tag this Judgment!Sarada Charan Chakravarti Vs. Durgaram De Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal461
Caspersz and Doss, JJ.1. On the 28th Agrahayan 1293, Mohesh Chandra Chuckerbutty, father of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, executed the mortgage bond in suit. On the 26th Chaitra 1305, the defendant No. 1 paid Us. 5 towards interest due on the bond: this he did to avert a suit about to be brought by the plaintiff, and an endorsement was duly made of the bond in the presence of a pleader who arranged the matter between the parties. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted on the 24th November 1905, and it is barred against the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 unless the payment of interest be held to have given the plaintiff a fresh starting point as provided by Section 20 of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877. It appears that the second defendant was of age when his brother paid the item of interest. The third and fourth defendants are still minors.2. The Court of first instance gave a decree against the defendant No. 1 only. The lower Appellate Court decreed the entire claim against all the ...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Nath Chowdhry Vs. Kali NaraIn Roy Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal662
Mookerjee and Teunon, JJ.1. The plaintiff respondent commenced the action out of which this appeal arises for declaration of his title as a mirasdar in respect of five khadas and fifteen pakis of land. The plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners of a taluk within which the disputed land is comprised. The first and the third defendants are proprietors of the superior interest to the extent of four annas the second defendant owns another four annas; the fifth and the sixth defendants claim four annas, and the remaining four annas belong to the plaintiff and the fourth defendant. In the course of proceedings for partition of the estate by the Revenue authorities under Act VIII of 1876, the plaintiff alleged that he was in occupation of the disputed land not as proprietor, but as mirasdar under the entire body of landlords. This allegation was challenged by the co-proprietors of the plaintiff, and the result was a summary investigation by the Collector, who came to the conclusion that t...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Nath Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Kali NaraIn Roy Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.881
1. The plaintiff-respondent commenced the action out of which this appeal arises for declaration of his title as a mirasdar in respect of five khadas and fifteen pakis of land. The plaintiffs and the defendants are co-owners of a taluk within which the disputed land is comprised. The first and the third defendants are proprietors of the superior interest to the exent of the four annas; the second defendant owns another four annas; the fifth and the sixth defendants claim four annas and the remaining four annas belong to the plaintiff and the fourth defendant. In the course of proceedings for partition of the estate by the Revenue authorities under Act VIII of 1876, the plaintiff alleged that he was in occupation of the disputed land not as proprietor, but as mirusdar under the entire body of landlords. This allegation was challenged by the co-proprietors of the plaintiff, and the result was a summary investigation by the Collector, who came to the conclusion that the miras set up by th...
Tag this Judgment!Saroda Charan Chuckerbutty and ors. Vs. Durga Ram De Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.484
1. On the 28th Aghan 1293, Mohesh Chandra Chuckerbutty, father of defendants Nos. 1-4 executed the mortgage bond in suit. On the 23th Chaitra 1305, the defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 5 towards interest due on the band. This he did to avert a suit about to be brought by the plaintiffs and an endorsement was duly made on the bond in the presence of a pleader, who arranged the matter between the parties. The, suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted on the 21th November 1905 and it is barred against the defendants Nos. 2-4 unless the payment of interest beheld to have given the plaintiff a fresh starting point as provided by Section 20 of the Limitation Act XV of 1877. It appears that the second defendant was of age when his brother paid the item of interest. The third and fourth defendants are still minors.2. The Court of first instance gave a decree against the defendant No. 1 only. The lower appellate Court decreed the entire claim against all the defendants of whom the defendants Nos....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »