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.
Ramjiban Bhuttacharjee Vs. Ahmed Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.537
1. The present petitioner instituted on the 27th July, 1908, in the Court, of the 4th Munsif, Tamluk, a suit for the recovery of money due on a bond. On the 8th August 1909, the plaintiff appeared in the Munsif's Court to prove service of process on the defendant and filed in support of that proof an affidavit sworn in the Bar Library by the identifier before a pleader who is also an Honorary Magistrate. The Munsif refused to accept the affidavit and directed the petitioner to have an affidavit sworn before the officer of the Court appointed for that purpose. Thereafter on the same date the petitioner appeared again before the Munsif with an affidavit of the identifier sworn before another pleader Honorary Magistrate. The Munsif refused to accept the affidavit and dismissed the suit for default.2. On the 28th August, the petitioner made an application to this Court and a rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the suit by the petitioner should not be restored and the Mu...
Sarat Chandra Mukherjee Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.644
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: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.2. 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 the commission of such offence.'3. Wh...
Nawab Sarurjigar Begam Vs. Baroda Kant Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.539
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 October 1902, and the four...
Gopal Chandra Chowdhry Vs. Uma Charan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.646
1. In this case a Magistrate has made an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, whereby he has found the first party in proceedings under that section to be in possession of the disputed land at the date of the proceedings. We have granted a Rule on him to show cause why the order should not be set aside on the ground that it is inconsistent with the decree of a Civil Court.2. Both parties to the present dispute claim possession of the land in question through their tenants, and the present dispute seems to have been more or less in existence for a long time since it is said that there was litigation in connection with it as long ago as 1846, and again 1882. The Civil case, however, to which the Rule refers is a suit for possession brought by the 1st party against the second in 1905, and decided in favour of the second on the 20th April 1907. Against this decree the first party has appealed to this Court and the appeal is now pending. The proceedings in the present case were...
Rai Mohan Shaha Vs. Lakshu Karikar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.16
1. We are invited in this Rule to set asid a decree of the Small Cause Court at Manikgunge, by which the suit of the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation. The plaintiff sued to recover money due on a bond for Rs. 50 alleged to have been executed in his favour by the defendant on the 23rd March, 1905. The debt carried interest at the rate of Rs. 1-9 per cent. per month and was made payable on the 16th November 1905. The suit was commenced on the 18th March. 1909. The bond which was produced in Court and was admitted by the defendant, showed on the face of it an endorsement of a payment of Rs. 36 alleged to have been made on the 20th March 1908. The defendant in his statement before the Court also admitted the payment, but he alleged that the plaintiff had at the time consented to give up his claim for interest and to limit his claim to the principal amount. He urged, therefore, that only Rs. 14 was due, but pleaded that the claim was barred by limitetion. On the date of...
BasiruddIn Mondal Vs. Sonaullah Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.154
1. We are invited in this Rule to discharge an order made by the Small Cause Court Judge of Jhenidah, the effect of which is to set aside an ex parte decree made on the 7th August 1908. The facts material for our decision are all matters of record and are really not open to doubt or dispute. The petitioner brought a suit in the Small Cause Court at Jhenidah against the defendant for recovery of a sum of money, and on the 7th August 1908, obtained an ex parte decree. His case is that execution was subsequently taken out and on the 14th December, a sum of Rs. 4 Was realised by the attachment and sale of some movables of the judgment-debtor. On the 15th March 1909, the defendant made an application to set aside the ex parte decree., which is the foundation of the proceedings now before us. In this application, he alleged that he had never taken a loan from the plaintiff, that he had no knowledge of the suit, that the processes had been suppressed, that an ex parte decree had been fraudule...
Chhayemannessa Bibi Vs. Basirar Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal399
Mookerjee and Teunon, JJ.1. We are invited in this appeal to reverse an order of the District Judge by which he has dismissed an application for execution of a decree as tarred by limitation.2. The appellant obtained the decree on the 5th July 1905. On the 29th June 1908 she applied for execution. This application was presented by a mukhtiar, Gopi Nath, who signed on the back of the mukhtiarnama which was attached to the application. As a matter of fact, the body of the mukhtiarnama did not contain the name of this mukhtiar, and the case of the appellant throughout has been that the name was omitted by the mistake of the writer who drew up the power-of-attorney. The Officer of the Court who examined the application overlooked this defect, though he found out that the application was not in order, as the properties sought to be attached had been imperfectly described. On the 2nd July 1908, the application was returned to the 'filing pleader' for amendment within seven days. The applicat...
Chhayunnessa Bibi Vs. Kazi Basirar Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.532
1. We are invited in this appeal to reverse an order of the District Judge by which he has dismissed an application for execution of a decree as barred-by limitation.2. The appellant obtained the decree on the 5th July 1905. On the 29th June 1908, she applied for execution. This application was presented by a mukhtear Gopi Nath, who signed on the back of the mukhtearnamah which was attached to the application. As a matter of fact, the body of the mukhtearnamah did not contain the name of this mukhtear, and the case of the appellant throughout has been, that the name was omitted by the mistake of the writer, whodrew up the power of attorney. The officer of the Court who examined the application overlooked this defect, though he found out that the application was not in order, as the properties sought to be attached had been imperfectly described. On the 2nd July 1908, the application was returned to the 'filing pleader,' for amendment within seven days. The application was amended, and ...
Mathura Prosad and anr. Vs. Anurago Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.579
1. This appeal arises on an order of the learned District Judge of 3hupra, Saran, setting aside an order of the Subordinate Judge, first Court, on an application under Section 244, Civil Procedure Code.2. In the Court of first instance the judgment-debtor objected to the execution of a decree on the ground that the application for execution was out of time. The Subordinate Judge disallowed the objection, the learned District Judge has allowed it.3. The facts are briefly as follows: The decree was obtained on the 6th August 1902, and the first application for execution was struck off on the 6th June 1905. A second application was made on the 5th December 1907, and was admittedly within time, although it appears not to have been precisely ascertained when the application of 1905 was filed. The application was in proper form, under Section 235, Civil Procedure Code, and the mode in which the assistance of the Court was required was by attachment of a certain house and also by attachment o...
Satis Chandra Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. Satya Charan Mozumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.531
1. The plaintiff sought to obtain a decree, declaring his title to the three plots in the schedule and for a declaration that the defendant had acquired no right to the properties in virtue of the rent decrees he had recovered against the plaintiff's tenants.2. In the opinion of the lower Courts, the plaintiff should have included a prayer for recovery of possession, and further, the lower appellate Court refused to allow him to amend the plaint because there had been considerable delay in' applying for that purpose.3. In second appeal, the contentions raised are three in number: first, that the plaintiff's suit was maintainable on a right construction of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; secondly, that, at any rate, the amendment of the plaint prayed for should have been allowed, and, thirdly, that, in any event, the suit can proceed with regard to the third plot as to which the defendant has not recovered any rent decree against the tenant thereof.4. A number of cases have been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »