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.
Sri Adwaitanand Tirthoswami Vs. Basudeo Nand and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.208
1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the Deputy Collector. The grounds on which the lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance are purely technical. It appears that the 24th October 1906 was fixed as the date for the hearing of the case arid that on that date the Deputy Collector was absent from the headquarters in camp. On the 16th October, the plaintiff-appellant put in an application through his agent praying that the case might be postponed as he had not been able to obtain certain necessary papers. That application was forwarded to the Deputy Collector in camp and was placed before him on the 24th October. On that date, however, the plaintiff and the defendants failed to appear and the Deputy Collector, apparently on the representation of the two mukhtears who were not employed in the case that no one on behalf of the plaintiff was present, struck off ...
Ajodhya Singh and ors. Vs. Lala Jannoo Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.341
1. One of the several proprietors of an estate brought a suit for the moharrari rent of his share against plaintiffs, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and others and obtained a decree which was executed against the plaintiff alone. The plaintiff paid up the amount and obtained amicable contribution from all others of his co-judgment-debtors except defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and another, with regard to whom there is no dispute now. The plaintiff brought this suit for contribution against the unwilling defendants. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded that they were the furzidars of one of the superior maliks and, having no interest in the moharrari tenure for which rent had been decreed, were not liable. The learned Sub-Judge gave effect to this plea and dismissed the suit against them. The learned District Judge in appeal by the plaintiff held that the case came within the purview of Section 69 of the Contract Act and decreed the suit without going into the question of fact whether the plea of benam...
Ramanandan Prosad Vs. Sheo Parson Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.301
1. This is an appeal in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents to obtain a declaration that they are 'the next reversioners to the estate of the late Babu Bachu Singh accordingly to Hindu law.' The defendant 1st party, Ramnandan Pershad Singh, obtained probate of the Will of Bachu Singh about three years after the death of the alleged testator which event took place on the 12th November 1899. The probate proceedings were contested by three sets of caveators of whom the present plaintiffs were the first. The District Judge found that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to oppose the grant, they not being the next reversioners of Bachu Singh, and the Will was thereupon proved without further contest. The decision of the District Judge was on appeal affirmed by this Court (Rampini and Mitra, JJ.,) on the 8th February 1905. The defendant No. 1, Ramnandan, who may be described, as the defendant, claimed to have been adopted by the deceased Bachu Singh so long ago, as the year 1875, ...
Baroda Prosad Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Annoda Mohan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.359
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action for recovery of possession of 125 bighas of land which they claim as reformation in situ of their Mouzali Khanka deluviated by the river Bhairao. The Courts below have concurrently found upon the question of title in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court of first instance, however, dismissed a portion of the claim on the ground that the defendants had acquired a good title by adverse possession for the statutory period. Upon appeal by both parties the Subordinate Judge has varied the decree of the original Court and has held that the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed in respect of a smaller area.2. The plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court and on their behalf, it has been contended that the Subordinate Judge has failed to apply to the facts of the present case the principles applicable to cases of acquisition of title by adverse possession in respect of chur lands. In our opinion, the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in...
Provabati Debi Vs. Rameswar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.248
1. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit against the two sets of defendants, namely, defendants Nos. 1 to 10 who may be described as the Mandals and defendants Nos. 11 to 18 who may be described as the Chatterjees in order to have it declared that certain alienations made by her mother after the death of her father were invalid as affecting her reversionary right to her father's property. The Court of first instance decreed the suit with costs against both sets of defendants. Against the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance the Mandal defendants alone appealed to the lower appellate Court; the Chatterjee defendants did not appeal. The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance and, dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs in both Courts. The learned District Judge does not appear in his judgment to have recognised that the appeal was by one set of defendants only. The ground on which the lower appellate Court reversed the decis...
Basli Bibi and ors. Vs. Hanif-ud-dIn Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.570
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order' by which the Court below has refused to add the petitioners as defendants in a suit for rent. The case for the petitioners is that the original tenants of the holding were two persons of the name of Rajoomandal and Danesmandal, that after their death the plaintiffs landlords brought a suit for arrears of rent against some only of their representatives and got a decree and that they have now brought the present suit framed in the same manner against some only of the representatives of the original tenants, without any notice to the others. They therefore, applied to the Court below to be added as parties defendants on the allegation that they were co-sharers of the tenants defendants and were in possession of the holding in that character. It maybe mentioned here that this petition accorded with the defence of the original defendants, who had alleged in their written statements that they alone were not liable for the whole rent and t...
Ramsebak Lal Vs. Muneswar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal604
Harington, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the proceeding which has been instituted against the petitioner should not be stayed on the ground that, under the provisions of Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is not liable to be tried for the offence charged against him.2. The proceeding which is now pending against the petitioner is a prosecution for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contends that he is protected under Section 403, because he has been already tried and acquitted of an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the statement now alleged to be defamatory. The facts are that the accused gave a certain information to the manager of the Bettiah Raj which was untrue. He was prosecuted under Section 182, but acquitted on the ground that the person to whom he gave the information was not a public servant within the purview of that section. That informa...
Golab Misser Vs. Kumar Kalanand Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.217
1. These three appeals arise out of three suits brought by the plaintiffs-appellants to have it declared that their status as tenants was that of occupancy raiyats holding at fixed rents. In the record-of-rights which has been prepared in respect of their Tillage, they had been entered as tenure-holders without fixity of rents under the defendants.2. In support of their claims in the three suits, plaintiffs filed a number of rent receipts and adduced oral evidence. The defendant adduced no evidence.,3. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiffs had proved by satisfactory evidence that the holding in the first suit had been held at an uniform rent since 1879, that the second holding had been similarly held since 1847 and the third since 1853. Fixity of rent having been proved in the case of each holding for upwards of 20 years, the Subordinate Judge held that the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act would arise and that each must be considered as held at a r...
Hari Charan Sarkar and ors. Vs. the District Judge of Dacca
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.327
1. We are invited in this Rule to discharge an order made under Section 33 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, as amended by the Legal Practitioners Act, 1896, by which the name of the petitioner has been included in a list of touts. The proceedings in the Court below have been attacked on the ground of multifariousness under the following circumstances: The District .Judge of Dacca, on the 31st July 1909, drew up a proceeding under the section, in which he recorded that he had reason to believe that the persons named in the list habitually acted as touts, and he called upon them to show cause why they should not be proclaimed as touts. A separate notice was served upon each of these persons. On the 25th August, the petitioner filed a written statement and showed cause. On that very date, written statements were filed on behalf of most of the other persons who had been called upon to show cause. On the 3rd September, the District Judge directed that each of the objection cases was to...
Ram Sewak Lal Vs. Maneshwar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.352
Harington, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the case, which has been instituted against the petitioner, should not be quashed and the proceedings set aside on the ground that under the provisions of Section 403, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is not liable to be tried for the offence charged against him,2. The proceeding1 which is now pending against the petitioner is a prosecution for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contends' hat he is protected under Section 403, because he has been already tried and acquitted of an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are that the accused gave a certain information to the manager of the Bettiah Raj which was untrue. He was prosecuted under Section 182 but acquitted on the ground that the person to whom he gave the information was not a public servant within the purview of that section. That information was, as a matter of fact,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »