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.
Kishorilal Roy Chowdhury Vs. Krishna-kamini Chowdhrani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal377
Mookerjee and Teunon, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in an action for recovery of possession of land. The plaintiff and the first, third and fourth defendants are owners of the taluk in which the disputed land is situated. The land has been used, according to one of the witnesses for the plaintiff, as homestead land for about half, a century, and it has been in the occupation of tenants from time to time. About 1889 the land was let out to one Rajani Kumar Dey who raised structures thereon and occupied them till his death in or about the year 1897. He left a widow, Susila Sundari, and three infant sons who remained in occupation of the land and buildings after his death. On the 25th February 1901, Susila Sundari, as the guardian of her infant sons, conveyed the premises to one Ghanesyam Pandey, who on the 1st June 1901 sold the property to the first defendant, one of the superior landlords, in the name of his officer, the second defendant. Shortly after, the p...
Shib Nath Dhar Vs. Annoda Prosad Dhar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.340
1. This is an appeal in a suit to recover arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 7-12-4 per annum.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit and declined to decree the plaintiffs' claim at the rate admitted by the tenant defendant because the admission so made could not be construed into a liability to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 5 per annum.3. The District Judge on appeal has decreed the suit at the rate which he calls the admitted rate of Rs. 5 per annum, and he has deducted from that jama a sum of annas 6 which, he says, is the rent payable in respect of plot No. 2 as to which it has been found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.4. The tenant defendant appeals, and, on his behalf, it has been urged that the District Judge has wrongly read the written statement and misapprehended the true effect of the admissions made by the tenant in that written statement and his deposition.5. A preliminary objection has been raised on the part of the landl...
Raghuraj Singh Vs. Maharaj Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.341
1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, who, holding that the Secretary of State was a necessary party to a suit for recovery of possession of property on the ground that a certificate and a sale under it had in no way affected the plaintiff's rights Being ab initio null and void, dismissed the suit.2. The appellant maintained and still maintains that so long as he does not seek to set aside the decree or the sale but merely for a declaration that his title and possession are not affected by the decree and the sale, he is entitled to sue without making the Secretary of State a party to the suit.3. It is argued that the ruling in the ease of Gobinda Chandra Shaha v. Hemanta Kumari Debi 31 C. 159, does not apply to this case. It appears to us that the plaintiff does not seek to set aside the sale and if it is a matter of indifference to him whether the decree stands or not then that ruling does not apply.4. Then as regards the distinction, which ...
Mrs. Levenia Ashton Vs. Madhabmonia Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.390
1. We are invited in this appeal to discharge an order made by the Court below, the effect of which is to reverse a sale of a mortgage-decree in execution of a money-decree against the decree-holders. The circumstances which render necessary a decision upon the question of the legality of this sale, are all matters of record, and do not admit of serious controversy. On various dates between the 20th March 1893 and 30th March 1895, Pamelu Lambet, the widow of one William Makeon, borrowed large sums of money from Dwarka Nath Mitter of this city and hypothecated the interest she had obtained in the estate of her deceased husband under the Will of the latter. After the death of Dwarka Nath, his brother Amrita Nath as administrator and his widow, Madhabmoney as administratrix of the estate left by him, commenced an action on the 30th September 1901 to enforce the mortgage securities. They joined as parties defendants, the mortgagor, one Sarat Kumari, the purchaser of the equity of redemptio...
Lalit Chandra Chowdhury Vs. Baikuntha Nath Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.395
1. The estate of the late Harish Chandra Chowdhury is the subject of the litigation resulting in this appeal.2. Harish died in the year 1875 (1282 B.S.). His widow, however, survived him up till Ashin 1314 (1907). Thereupon, the parties before us put in their respective applications to obtain a grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of Harish Chandra.3. No issues were framed by the District Judge and the question decided by him was as to which of the parties were the preferential heirs, and that question was further narrowed down to the sole issue whether Broja Nath and Padamalabh were One and the same person or two different persons.4. It is conceded that Atmaram was the common ancestor of the parties but, whereas, according to the defendant, Atmaram had two sons, Brojo Nath and Padmalabh, the else for the plaintiffs was that Brojo Nath was a mere alias of Padmalabh. In accordance with these respective contentions, the parties led their evidence. The principal items of evide...
Bipro Das Khasnavis Vs. Pachi Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.434
Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover arrears of rents and cesses. The plaintiff sues as the surviving administratrix to the estate of her son Arman Sana deceased, and the point that has been argued before me in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by virtue of the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Both the lower Courts have held that as the plaintiff claimed rent not as heiress of Mohamed Arman Shah but as administratrix to his estate, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of these sections, and in so finding it appears to me that the judgments of those Courts are correct. The words used in Sections 15 and 16 do not appear to me to refer to the case of representation but to the cases of beneficial succession. That this is so would appear to be shown also by the definition of 'succession' in the Act as including intestate and testamentary succession, and by the circumstance that one does not speak of succession in...
Kishori Lal Roy Chowdhury Vs. Srimati Krishna Kamini Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.500
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in an action for recovery of possession of land. The plaintiff and the first, third and fourth defendants are owners of the taluh in which the disputed land is situated. The land has been tised according to one of the witnesses for the plaintiff as homestead land for about half a century, and it has been in the occupation of tenants from time to time. About 1889, the land was let out to one Rajani Kumar Dey who raised structures thereon and occupied them till his death in or about the year 1897. He left a widow Susila Sundari and three infant sons who remained in occupation of the land and buildings after his death. On the 25th February 1901, Susila Sundari, as the guardian of her infant sons, conveyed the premises to one Ghanesyam Pandey, who on the 1st June 1901, sold the property to the first defendant, one of the superior landlords in the name of his officer, the second defendant. Shortly after the plaintiff commenced an action ...
Hari Charan Agradani and anr. Vs. Sasti Charan Agradani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.175
1. The question of law which calls for decision in this Rule is one of some novelty and relates to the right of a Brahmin of the Agradani class to the offerings to the dead at a sradh ceremony. The circumstances, under which the question arises for decision, are fairlylclear upon the evidence on the record. One Chandra Kumar Chakravarty, on the occasion of the sradh of his mother, invited the plaintiffs who are Brahmins of the Agradani class as priests. The food intended for disembodied spirits was taken by the plaintiffs, but 'when the time came for the distribution of the valuable offerings, the zemindar of the village, Jugut Prasanna Roy, who was present, interfered and by his direction, Chandra Kumar made over the articles to the defendants who also were Brahmins of the Agradani class and who had been invited not as priests but as men of the same village. The plaintiffs thereupon commenced this action against the defendants for recovery of the price of the articles in question. The...
King Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.858
Fletcher, J.1. This is a hopeless and frivolous action.2. The plaintiff, Mr. Arthur John King, was employed by the Government of India in a tea garden in Port Blair, in the Andaman Islands. The plaintiff in his plaint alleges that in the month of February, 1887, Mr. A.P. Macdonnel, the then Officiating Secretary to the Government of India, wrote to the then Superintendent of Port Blair setting out the terms on which the employment of the plaintiff was sanctioned by the Secretary of State, viz., that after an engagement of three years the plaintiff's services should be retained for an undefined period, on a salary of Rs. 350 a month increasing by annual increments together with a commission of five per cent, on the net profits of the tea garden. There were certain other allowances which were to be made to the plaintiff and he was to be entitled to six calendar months notice if his engagement was to be terminated. The plaintiff further alleges that on the 4th July, 1887, the Government o...
Jafar Ali Howladar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.668
1. This is a rule calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the securities offered by the petitioner should not be accepted. The petitioner has been ordered to be bound down under Section 118, Criminal Procedure Code, and to find sureties for Rs. 2,500, the sureties being of such number not exceeding five as he may see fit. He has found five sureties all of whom are of sufficient substance to be able to pay Rs. 2,500, but who are not in the opinion of the Magistrate in a position to control the petitioner sufficiently to ensure his good behaviour in future.2. The question is whether the grounds on which these sureties have been refused by the Magistrate are sufficient. In our opinion they are not. Considering the judgments of this Court in the cases of Ram Pershad v. King-Emperor 6 C.W.N. 593 and Adam Sheikh v. Emperor 35 C. 400 : 7 Cr. L.J. 439, it seems to be plain that the first matter to be enquired into is the ability of the sureties to pay the sums for which they becom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »