Kolkata Court April 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.
Rashi Mendli Vs. Sundar Mendli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.441
1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain lands to which he claimed title by survivorship. It appears that the family to which the plaintiff belongs originally consisted of three uterine brothers and three, step-brothers. The uterine brothers were Khedu, father of the plaintiff, Ratan and Badan and the three step-brothers were Rashi, Firinghi and Burla. There was a partition of the family property about 12 or 14 years ago between these six brothers and, according to the statement made in the judgment of the Court of first instance, the property was divided into six different shares, the area and boundaries of each share being set out in the award of partition. After this partition, the uncles of the plaintiff, namely, Ratan and Badan, who at the time of the partition are said to have been mere boys, continued to live with their brother Khedu. After sometime, Khedu died and the plaintiff, his son, continued to live with his uncl...
Hara Chandra Bairagi and ors. Vs. BepIn Behary Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.860
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The only point raised on this appeal is whether Mr. Justice Mookerjee came to an erroneous decision when he held that the rule of res judicata applied although the decree in the former suit was ex parte as against the present appellants. A reference to the proceedings in the former suit shows that an issue was raised on the points now called in question and that the issue was heard and finally decided by the Court on the previous occasion, and I can see no ground on which it can be held that the rule of res judicata does not apply. In our opinion, Mr. Justice Mookerjee was perfectly right in the decision at which he arrived, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.Doss, J.2. I agree....
Rai Kishori Ghose Vs. Kumudini Kanta Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1910
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.377
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of what is claimed by her as joint property. The defendants denied the allegation that the property was still joint; their case was that since the partition of 1877 mentioned by the plaintiff, they have been in possession of the disputed land as included in their allotment, and that as the result of a subsequent partition amongst themselves, the second and third defendants are at present in occupation of the disputed lands.2. The Court of first instance made a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Upon appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, after he had partially heard the arguments, went to the spot and held a local investigation under section' 392 of the Code of 1882. He subsequently heard further arguments and came to the conclusion that the judgment of the original Court must be modified.3. The plaintiff has now appealed to this Court, and on her behalf the decision of the Subordinate Judge has been a...
Phillips Vs. Phillips
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal613,7Ind.Cas.792
Pugh, J.1. In this case an application is made to me to re-consider, either by way of review or as a fresh application with the same object as the former, an order that I made declining to order an attachment before judgment in a divorce proceeding. The application was made at 4-30 p. M. at the rising of the Court, and I then dealt with the matter in a somewhat cursory way, and I refused the application on the simple ground that I never knew of an attachment before judgment in a divorce case. Learned Counsel who now appears does not suggest that such an order has ever been made before in divorce proceedings. He argues that the point is one of first impression, and he contends that on principle he is entitled to the order. The argument is founded on Section 45 of the Divorce Act, which provides that proceedings under this Act shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, and he wishes to eliminate from my consideration Section 7, which provides that in all suits and proceedings und...
Mahadeb Aon Vs. Chairman of the Howrah Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal697
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The question raised by this second appeal is one of considerable importance, namely, whether arable lands are liable to be rated under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884.2. The original suit was brought for a declaration that certain land within the limits of the Howrah Municipality, of which the plaintiff was in possession as a cultivator for the purpose of growing betel, was exempt from assessment under Section 85 of the Act, for an injunction restraining the Municipal Commissioners of Howrah, through their Chairman, the defendant, from levying upon it the tax imposed on 'holdings' thereunder, and for the recovery, after refund, of the amount actually realised from the plaintiff in respect of the said tax and costs. The Court of first instance and the lower Appellate Court have concurred in dismissing the suit, and the plaintiff has now appealed to this Court.3. That Section 85 of the Act provides, in clear and unambiguous language, for the imposition of a t...
Tarakanta Ghose Vs. Rai Kishori Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.361
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the appellant in an action for establishment of title to immovable property. The claim of the plaintiff is founded on a partition made by an award of arbitrators in 1877. On behalf of the defendants it is contended that the award is not admissible in evidence because it was not registered as required by Section 17, Clause (6), of the Registration Act. The Courts below have overruled this contention, and, in our opinion, rightly. There is no dispute as to what actually took place. The joint owners agreed to effect a partition of their joint properties. They first executed an abichalnamah, or irrevocable deed of agreement in which they set out elaborately the mode in which the partition was to be effected, and appointed arbitrators to effect a division by metes and bounds, The arbitrators divided the properties accordingly, and recorded the distribution they made in an award. Now it is clear that the abichalnamah merely embodied an agreement to effect a ...
Mohadev Aon Vs. Chairman of the Howrah Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.410
1. The question raised by this second appeal is one of considerable importancenamely, whether arable lands are liable to be rated under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884. The original suit was brought for a declaration that certain land within the limits of the Howrah Municipality, of which the plaintiff was in possession as a cultivator for the purpose of growing betel, was exempt from assessment under Section 85 of the Act, for an injunction restraining the Municipal Commissioners of Howrah, through their Chairman, the defendant, from levying upon it the tax imposed on holdings' thereunder, and for the recovery, after refund, of the amount actually realised from the plaintiff in respect of the said tax and costs. The Court of first instance and the lower appellate Court have concurred in dismissing the suit, and the plaintiff has now appealed to this Court.2. That Section 85 of the Act provides in clear and unambiguous language for the imposition of a tax upon all holdings' or, in the a...
Provata Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Miajan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.384
1. This is an .,appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action for rent. The claim was based on a qabuliat alleged to have been executed by the defendants on the 27th June 1874. The defendants resisted the claim on various grounds. They alleged in the first place, that the qabuliat was a forged instrument. They next contended that the plaintiffs had no title to the property and were not in possession of the disputed land which they held as tenants under certain other persons.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the qabuliat was not proved to be genuine and that the defendants had never paid rent to the plaintiffs. Upon appeal the District Judge reversed that decision on grounds which it is not necessary to consider for our present purposes. The matter then came in second, appeal to this Court with the result that the .judgment of the District Judge was set aside and the case remanded for re-consideration on the evidence. When the case went before the Di...
Bahadur of Murshidabad Vs. Gopinath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.392
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, in an action for declaration of title to immovable property and for recovery of possession thereof with mesne profits. The plaintiff claimed the disputed' land as included within his Mouzi Gandharbapur, which is a part of his estate Gopmathpur. The defendants, on the the other hand, laid claim to the property as included within their Monza Monoharpur. It was not disputed in the Courts below that the plaintiff was entitled to Mouza Gandharbapur, and the defendants to Monoharpur. In so far, therefore, as the question of title was concerned, the sole point in controversy reduced itself to one of boundary dispute. The defendants further pleaded that the title of the plaintiff, if any, had been extinguished by limitation. In the Court of first instance, an Ameen was appointed to relay the thak and survey maps, and to ascertain whether the disputed land lay within the ambit of the one village or other. His enq...
Nilmoni Guntia Vs. Jogendra Guntia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.389
1. In support of this appeal it has first been argued that the lower appellate Court is wrong in holding that the lumbardar is not alone entitled to bring a suit to eject the defendant. It has been argued that, as the lumbardar is the agent for the purpose of representing the body of the proprietors in their dealings with the Government and as, for that purpose, he has to collect the rents, therefore, he must be held to be, as an agent on behalf of the other co-sharers, entitled to bring a suit for ejectment. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces in the case of Ram Ratan, Ram Gopal v. Hira Laxman 5 C.P.L.R. 47 to support the view that the lumbardar must be looked upon as the landlord whose consent under Section 61 Clause (2) of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act of 1898 is necessary to the validity of a transfer of property and that, as he can by his consent make a transfer valid, so if he withholds his consent, he is entitled,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »