Kolkata Court February 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.
Dhanai Sardar and ors. Vs. Tarak Nath Chowdhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.525
1. This is a second appeal in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs-appellants, to recover possession of five bighas land on declaration of their jote right which was created by a patta, dated the 2nd Kartick 1294, granted by the pidnidar. The suit was originally decreed against the seven defendants, including the defendant No. 7 Tarak Nath Chowdhury, who is the respondent in this appeal, and against whom the suit was decreed ex parte, on the 29th September 1902. The defendants Nos. 1 and 4 preferred an appeal from that decree, but it was dismissed on the 12th February 1903, and on the plaintiffs taking out execution, the objections of the defendants were disallowed (by the Munsif) on the 11th March 1905 and (by the Subordinate Judge) on the 15th July 1905. Meanwhile, on the 23rd April 1903, the defendant No. 7 applied under Section 108 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, to have the ex parte decree set aside as against him, and his prayer was granted by the Munsif on the 23rd December 1...
Basanta Kumari Guha Vs. Ramkanai Sen Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.698a
1. We are invited in this appeal by one of the judgment-debtors to reverse a sale, held in execution of a mortgage-decree on the 26th July 1907. The decree was obtained on the 19th September 1900, against nine judgment-debtors, and the properties directed to be sold, were also nine in number. Of those, the first, second and ninth properties belonged to the judgment-debtors numbered four to seven; the fourth property belonged to all; and the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth properties belonged exclusively to the petitioner. The sale proclamation, on the basis of which the sale now in controversy took place, is alleged to have been served on the 29th March 1907. It notified that the sale would commence on the 20th May following, for recovery of Rs. 11,041, the judgment-debt due, after allowance had been made for payments by the judgment debtors. The properties were described in detail, in a schedule, and their values were also set out. The sale, however, did not take place on the 20th Ma...
Yakub Sheikh Vs. Nafujan Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.571
1. This appeal is directed against an order made by the Court below under the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890. The appellant Yakub Sheikh made an application to the District Judge on the 30th July 1908, for appointment of himself as guardian of the person and property of his infant niece Sakina Bibee. Notices were directed to be served as usual and on the 2nd September 1908, the applicant was appointed guardian; and was directed to furnish security. On the 12th September, however, Nafujan Bibi, the mother of the infant applied to the Court and objected to the proceedings apparently on the ground that no notice had been served upon her. This petition of objection was directed to be heard on the 22nd September. Yakub did not appear on that day nor did he furnish the required security, and as the Judge felt doubtful whether any notice had been really served upon the mother with whom the infant resided, the appointment of Yakub as guardian was cancelled. On the 13th November, Yakub made a ...
Kadambini Dasi Vs. Dayaram Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.573
1. The question of the precise scope of Section 331 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, which calls for decision in this appeal, is one of some nicety and apparently of first impression. The facts so far as it is necessary to state them to explain how the question arises are not the subject of controversy between the parties. The appellant, in execution of a decree for possession of land obtained by him was resisted by the defendant with the result that she was unable to recover possession of the property decreed to her. The claim; of the person who offered the resistance to delivery of possession, was thereupon numbered and registered as a result between the decree-holder as plaintiff and the claimant as defendant under Section 331 of the Code. One of the objections of the claimant defendant was, that the Court was not competent to investigate the claim, as the value of the property in dispute exceeded Rs. 2,000 the limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The Court of first...
Administrator General of Bengal Vs. Ashutosh Burdhan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.645
1. The suit out of which this application arises, was valued at Rs. 2,162-14-9, and the appeal to this Court, against which it is desired to appeal to His Majesty in Council, was valued at Rs. 2,860-14-9. The decision of this Court on appeal reversed that of the Court of first instance, and, in order that this application for leave to appeal may be granted, it is necessary for the applicant to show that the value is over Rs. 10,000. In order to satisfy us on this point, the applicant in his application states that the decision of this Court indirectly involves a claim to property valued at more than Rs. 10,000, and, secondly, that the present market value of the land, the subject-matter of the suit, is over Rs. 10,000.2. The learned Vakil for the applicant has argued that under the terms of the contract entered into between his client and the opposite party, it was arranged that his clients should be given a lease of all the lands in village Algi, though the greater portion was then co...
EasIn Khan and anr. Vs. Abdul Wahab Sikdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.138
1. We are invited in this appeal to set aside an order by which the Court below has directed execution to proceed on the basis of a mortgage-decree made on the 3rd June 1898. The sole point in controversy between the parties is, whether the payments admittedly made by the judgment-debtor amounted in law to a satisfaction of the decree. The decree was made by consent for Rs. 836 payable in nine annual instalments. The first eight instalments were for Rs. 93 each and the last for Rs. 92. The sums were to be paid on the 12th February of each year from 1899 to 1907. The first and second instalments were paid in time. The third instalment was not paid and the question arises whether under the terms of the decree the decree-holders did not become entitled to realise the whole of the judgment-debt. The decree was in these terms: 'The suit is decreed in accordance with the solenamah for Rs. 836. The defendants do pay to the plaintiffs the above sum in instalments specified in the schedule. If ...
Suresh Chandra Mookerji Vs. Srimati Nesa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.553
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a possessory decree made by the Court below under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The facts so far as we have been able to gather them from the records may be briefly stated. One Amir Sheik was the recorded tenant of the disputed land under the petitioner as landlord. He died about the end of the year 1908. Chi the 23rd January 13C9, the persons claiming to be his legal representatives paid rent to the landlord on account of the holding. Subsequently under circumstances which have not been explained, the landlord took proceedings under Section 87 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and occupied the holding, with the result that the present opposite parties-who claimed to be the heirs of the original tenant and were in actual occupation of the lands, were dispossessed. They then commenced this action for recovery of possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The landlord resisted the claim on the ground that the plaintiffs had not been...
Upendra Nath Nag Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Bhupendra Nath Nag Chowdhry and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.582a
1. We are invited in this appeal, to set aside an order made by the Court below in a suit for partition. The Subordinate Judge was invited by the plaintiffs to appoint a Receiver, and upon the materials placed before him, he came to the conclusion that a Receiver ought to be appointed. On the 8th January last he recorded an order to this effect, which concluded with the following words: I think the whole of the property in suit will be better managed and the interest of all the parties will be better served if the property in suit be placed in the hands of a competent Receiver,' Against this order, the defendants preferred the appeal now before us on the 19th January. The appeal is manifestly incompetent. Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of 1908 provides that where it appears to the Court, to be just and convenient, the Court may by order appoint s, Receiver of any property whether before or after decree. Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (s), then provides that an appeal lies against an order m...
Sarat Chandra Mukerjee Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal384
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. This case arises under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1899, and the effect of the sections of that Act that we are concerned with is as follows.2. By Section 341(1), where any fixture has been attached to a building and causes an encroachment over any public street, the General Committee may require the owner or occupier to remove it. By Section 450(3) if, within the time prescribed in the notice, the fixture is not duly removed, the General Committee may apply to a Magistrate, and he may make an order directing that the fixture be demolished by the Chairman at the expense of the owner. By Section 574(3), whoever fails to comply with any requisition lawfully made upon him under Section 341, among others, 'shall be punished with a fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.'3. By Section 631 'no person shall be liable to punishment for any offence against this Act... unless complaint of such offence is made before a Magistrate within three months... next after ...
Sarur Jigar Begum Vs. Barada Kanta Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal526
Mookerjee and Teunon, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the second defendant in a mortgage suit. The mortgage security which the plaintiff respondent seeks to enforce is alleged to have been executed in his favour by the first two defendants on the 28th May 1898. The principal sum advanced is stated to have been Rs. 5,000, which carried interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum with quarterly rests, and was repayable on the 28th November 1898. The present action was commenced on the 11th March 1905, upon the allegation that nothing had been paid towards the satisfaction of the mortgage debt, except four sums paid on account of interest, namely, Rs. 150 on the 20th September 1898, Rs. 200 on the 16th February 1899, Rs. 400 on the 5th February 1901, and Rs. 600 on the 11th March 1902. The parties joined as defendants were the mortgagors (the first two defendants), a subsequent mortgagee, the third defendant, who claimed to have taken a security from the mortgagors on the 6th Octo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »