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.
Nanda Lal Ghose Vs. Sarat Chandra Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.562
Chatterji, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff for the eviction of the defendant from a certain brick-field said to have been leased to him for the period of one year from Kartik 1312 to Aswin 1313 alleging that notice to quit had been served in due course although no notice under law was necessary and also asking for certain arrears of rent for a part of the period in respect of which the tenancy was admitted.2. The first Court gave a decree to the plaintiff for possession as well as for the last quartely instalment of Rs. 40 as arrears of rent with interest. The learned Subordinate Judge upon appeal by the defendant, however, has set aside that decree and dismissed the whole of the plaintiff's suit.3. It is contended before me that the learned Judge has erred in law in deciding the case in that way. It is contended that Section 3 of the Registration Act provides that a lease includes an agreement to lease. Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act makes Section 107 of the sa...
Rakhal Das Adhya and ors. Vs. Maharaja Bahadoor Sir Prodyot Kuamar Tag ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.121
1. The sole point in controversy in these appeals is whether the plaintiff-respondent is debarred by reason of the provisions of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act (Act VII of 1878) from realising from the defendants appellants a four annas share of the rent payable in respect of the holdings occupied by them, The suits for rent, oat of which these appeals arise, were tried in the Court of first instance in two sets by two different officers. One of them upheld the contention of the defendants that Section 78 operated as a bar, while the other took a different view. Upon appeal the learned District Judge has held that Section 78 does not operate as a bar. He has, therefore, reversed the judgment in one set of cases and affirmed it in the other set. The defendants have now appealed to this Court, and reiterated the objection that Section 78 operates as a bar.2. The circumstances, under which the plaintiff claims to realise a four annas share of the rent payable by the defendants, a...
De Rozario Vs. Gulab Chand Anundjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal358
Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit for malicious prosecution.2. The plaintiff alleges in the plaint that on the 16th June 1909 the defendant falsely, maliciously, and without any reasonable and proper cause, laid a complaint under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code against the plaintiff before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and also asked for a search warrant against her.3. The 7th paragraph of the plaint alleges that the Magistrate sent the case to the Police for enquiry and report, but the defendant thereafter wrote to the Police Inspector stating that he did not want to proceed with the case or the house of the plaintiff to be searched. Paragraph 10 of the plaint alleges that a fresh complaint was made against the plaintiff through one Bissonath Dubay, but the said complaint was also dismissed.4. The point argued is whether, on these allegations, a suit for malicious prosecution can lie. Mr. Chatterjee admits that the evidence is not enough to carry the case higher, but says that the...
Raj Kumar Gope Vs. Hira Lal Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.486
1. This is an appeal in a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant, who is a professional money-lender, to recover Rs. 3,553-3, principal and interest, on a bond dated the 31st December 1902. The principal was Rs. 500. The bond was executed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and they covenanted to pay compound interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per mensem.2. The suit was decreed in full, in the first Court, against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the estate of the defendant No. 1 under the management of the Court of Wards.3. On appeal, the District Judge of Backergunge has reduced the rate of interest to 12 per cent, per annum up to the date of the decree of the first Court and further interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum.4. In second appeal, the contentions raised are, first, that, in any event, a decree should be passed at the contract rate against the defendant No. 2, who did not contest the suit at all; and, secondly, that upon a right construction of Section 16 of the Contra...
Bal Gobindram Bhakat Vs. Chhedilal Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.552
1. We are invited in this Rule to modify an instalment decree made under Order XX, Rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 by the Small Cause Court Judge of Murshibabad. The suit was for recovery of money due on an account-book for price of articles purchased by the defendant from the firm of the plaintiff. The transactions took place from time to time, the last of the series on the 20th July 1908, which the plaintiff alleged to be the date of his cause of action. The suit was instituted on the 20th September 1909. The claim was for Rs. 420-3-6, as principal sum and damages Rs. 9-12-6. The defendant admitted the claim, but pleaded inability to pay within one year as his properties had been destroyed by fire; in cross-examination he admitted, however, that he had his homestead, several bullocks and on its with which he carried on a grain business. The Small Cause Court Judge made a decree for the claim and costs and directed the amount to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 15 fr...
Nanda Lal Sirkar Vs. Benode Behary Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.313
1. We are invited in this rule to set aside an order of the Court below by which an application for amendment of a decree in a partition-suit has been allowed at the instance of the Commissioner appointed to effect the partition, and a similar application by the plaintiff has been dismissed, It appears that on the 15th February 1905, a consent decree was made between the parties to the litigation. Subsequently a Commissioner was appointed to divide the properties by metes and bounds and the plaintiff deposited in Court a sum of Rs. 30 to meet the costs of the Commissioner. At one stage of the proceedings, the Commissioner reported to the Court that, the amount deposited was insufficient and he prayed that the decree-holder might be asked to deposit an additional sum. The Court, however, directed the Commissioner to proceed with his work, and informed him that his fees would be paid as soon as they were deposited by the decree-holder: at the same time, a notice was issued upon the defen...
Dwarka Nath Sen Vs. Kisori Lal GosaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.549
1. We are invited in this Rule to reverse an order of the Court below by which an application of the petitioner to be made a party defendant to an action in ejectment has been rejected. The opposite party Kisory Lal Goswami commenced this action against Nripendra Lal Mitter on the allegation that the present petitioner Dwarka Nath Sen was a tenant of a holding tinder him, that on the 18th December, 1908, Dwarka Nath had transferred the holding to Nripendra, that the tenancy was non transferable, that consequently the purchaser had acquired no valid title and the plaintiff w7as entitled to recover possession. The defendant Nripendra resisted the claim principally on the ground that his vendor possessed a mourasi mokarrari transferable right in the land. On the 21st July 1909, the petitioner Dwarka Nath, the transferor, applied to the Subordinate Judge to be added as a party defendant to the suit. He alleged that although the deed executed by him was in form a conveyance, the transaction...
Derozario Vs. Gulab Chand Anundjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.877
Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit for malicious prosecution.2. The plaintiff alleges in the plaint that on 16th Jane (sic), the defendant falsely, maliciously and without any reasonable and proper cause, laid complaint under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code against the plaintiff before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and also asked for a search warrant against her.3. The 7th paragraph, of the plaint alleges that the Magistrate sent the case to the Police fo enquiry and report, but the defendant thereafter wrote to the Police Inspector stating that he did not want to proceed with the case or the house of the plaintiff to be searched. Paragraph 10 of the plaint alleges that a fresh complaint was made against the plain tiff through one Bissonath Dubay, but the said complaint was also dismissed.4. The point argued is whether, on these allegations, a suit for malicious prosecution can lie. Mr. Chatterjee admits that the evidence is not enough to carry the case higher, but says that the pla...
Naba Kishore Saha Vs. Dhananjoy Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1910
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.611
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession of a holding which originally belonged to the defendant No. 6, the pro forma defendant.2. It appears that in execution of a decree for money the holding was sold and purchased by the defendant No. 1, who obtained symbolical possession. He, however, failed to obtain actual possession as the defendant No. 6, the old tenant, did not give up possession of the holding. Then the defendant No. 1 came to an arrangement with the defendant No. 6 by which the holding was practically divided between them. Defendant No. 1 obtained possession of a portion, the remaining portion being left in the possession of defendant No. 6, a conveyance having been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 6 in the name of his sons. Subsequently, it appears, the defendant No. 6 entered into an arrangement with the landlords (the plaintiffs) under which the former executed a deed of surrender of the entire holding in favour of the land...
Sarat Chandra Roy Chowdhury Vs. Mahomed Khalil Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.387
1. The opposite party, appellant before us, obtained a decree ex parte against the respondents, and it was directed that mesne profits should be ascertained in the execution department. Possession of the land in suit was delivered in due course to the decree-holder who, thereupon, applied for assessment of the wasilut. The necessary enquiries were made and a final decree, also ex parte, was passed on the 2nd February 1908. After attachment had issued on the 29th August 1908, the respondents came in and applied, in terms of Section 244 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, alleging, inter alia fraud on the part of the decree-holder, and asking that the enquiries into mesne profits be re-opened. This application was made on the 4th November 1908. The first Court held that Section 244 did not apply, but the District Judge, on appeal, having come to a different conclusion, has remanded the case for re-trial on the merits.2. We are of opinion that the judgment of the District Judge cannot be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »