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.
Golam HosseIn Cassim Arif Vs. Fatima Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.300
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application by a purchaser at a sale held by a Receiver, under an order of Court for a sale certificate and for confirmation of the sale. The purchaser relies upon a decision of Sale, J. in the case of Minatunnessa Bibee v. Khatoonnessa Bibee 21 C. 479. The short point is whether a sale by a Receiver under the direction of the Court is a sale by the Court so as to enable or require the purchaser to obtain a sale certificate. With the utmost respect for the learned Judge, I think he has made a confusion between a sale by the Court and a sale under the Court. There are two classes of sales in suits: first, sales by the Court and second, sales under the Court. Sales by the Court are cases in which the Court makes a title to the purchaser and the Court confirms the sale and issues a sale certificate, The second class is where the Court authorizes a trustee, Receiver or other person holding property to sell the property and the sale is made out of Court, the Court ...
Hari NaraIn Banerjee Vs. Kusum Kumari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal589
Brett and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. Shama Sundari, defendant No. 1, executed in favour of one Jagannath Shaha, defendant No. 2, two mortgaged bonds by which, as security for payment of the mortgage debts, she hypothecated an 8 annas share of the dar-patni right in taraf Nalhati. The first of these deeds was executed on the 16th Agrahayan 1302 (28th November 1895), and was for a debt of Rs. 621; the second was executed on the 29th Jaista 1304 (6th June 1897) and was for a debt of Rs. 713.2. Shama Sundari with her daughter, daughter's son, etc., executed, on the 29th June 1898, a third mortgage bond in favour of the plaintiff Hari Narain Bannerjee to cover a debt of Rs. 4,237, and hypothecated, as security, not only the 8-anna dar-patni right already mortgaged in the two previous bonds, but also the 8-anna patni right in the same property and 8-anna zemindari and patni rights in other properties.3. On the 14th January 1903, the plaintiff paid off the two debts due on the bonds of Jagannath Shaha...
Buddhimanta Pramanik and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.147
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first three defendants in an action for ejectment. The father of the fourth defendant took a lease of the disputed lands from the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff on the 25th April 1868. It was expressly provided in this lease that the tenant would not be entitled to alienate the property nor to place the land in possession of any body else. The lease further contained a covenant that, if the lessee acted in contravention of this condition, the landlord would be entitled to take possession without re-coarse to the Court, and the tenant would not be allowed to plead that he had acquired a right of occupancy under Section 6 of Act X of 1859. The case for the plaintiff is that the 4th defendant in contravention of this covenant in the lease alienated the property in favour of the first three defendants and subsequently took a sub-lease of a small portion from them. On this allegation, the the plaintiff sued to eject the defendants.2. The Court...
Hari NaraIn Banerji Vs. Shama Sundari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.159
1. Shama Sundari defendant No. 1 executed in favour of one Jaga Nath Shaha, defendant. No. 2, two mortgage bonds by which as security for payment of the mortgage debts she hypothecated 8 annas share of the darpatni right in Taraf Nathi. The first of these deeds was executed on the 16th Agrahan 1302 (28th November 1895) and was for a debt of Rs. 621; the second was executed on the 29 th Jaista 1304 6th June 1897, and was for a debt of Rs. 713.2. Shama Sundari with her daughter, daughter's son, etc., executed on the 20th June 1898 a third mortgage bond in favour of the plaintiff, Hari Narain Banerji, to covera debt of Rs. 4,237 and hypothecated as security not only the 8th anna darpatni right already mortgaged in the two previous bonds but also the 8 anna patni right in the same property and eight anna zemindari and putni rights in other properties.3. On the 14th January 1903, the plaintiff paid off the two debts due on the bonds of Jaga Nath Shah and the payments were endorsed on the bo...
Pitambar Purkait Vs. Madhu Sudan Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.153
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the second defendant in a suit to enforce a mortgage security, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 23rd January 1899. The substantial point in controversy in the Courts below related to the genuineness of mortgage instrument, The Court of first instance found that the document was not genuine and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the subordinate Judge has found that the mortgage was bona fide transaction and that the deed was executed for valuable consideration. In this view he has made the usual decree for sale. On behalf of the appellant, who is the present owner of the equity of redemption, it has been argued that no decree for sale ought to have been made inasmuch as the mortgage was of an usufructuary character and consequently the mortgagee was not entitled to a decree for sale of the mortgaged premises. In support of the proposition reliance has been placed upon the cases of Luchmeshar Singh v. Dookh Mochan Jha 24 C....
Raja Inderjit Pertap Bahadur Sahi Vs. Mohunt Krishna Doyal Gir and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.277
1. This is a contest between the defendant who may be taken to be the proprietor of mouza Teswar, on the west, and the plaintiffs who are, respectively, the proprietor and ticcadar of mouza Lebura on the east. Situated in the plaintiff's mouza is an Ahar, or reservoir, called Bandh Ahar. According to the facts found, the surface water of the plaintiff's mouza collects within this Ahar from the southward, northward and eastward, and there is also, a well-defined channel marked as H.I. in the Commissioner's map which conducts the water from another mouza on the northwest, into the Bandh Ahar. The plaintiff constructed on the confines of the Bandh Ahar a pyne A. B. C. for the purpose of irrigating his lands on the east, and by so doing he prevented the surface water from accumulating in the Bandh Ahar to some extent.2. The matter came before the Criminal Court under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, and the plaintiffs were prohibited, on the 30th September 1905, from constructing the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›