Kolkata Court May 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.
Kanai Lal Biswas Vs. Nitai Chand Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.492
1. We are invited in these Rules to set aside a decree made by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah in a suit for damages for use and occupation of a verandah. The ease for the plaintiff was that he was the owner of the verandah, that the two sets of defendants had occupied the premises, from the 14th April, 1909 up to the 20th September 1909 and were consequently liable to pay compensation for use and occupation. The first defendant contended that fee came into occupation of the verandah as the tenant of the second set of defendants and was not liable. The second set of defendants contended that the verandah in question was part of their portion of the house and that no suit for damages for use and occupation could lie against them. The Small Cause Court Judge has made a decree against the first defendant and dismissed the suit as against the other defendants.2. We are now asked in Rule No. 490 of 1910 by the first defendant to set aside the decree against him on the grou...
Raj Krishna Parui Vs. Mutktaram Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.700
1. We are invited in this rule to set aside a decree by which a suit commenced by the petitioners under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act has been dismissed. The learned Judge in the Court below correctly set out the issue for trial in these terms 'Were the plaintiffs in possession of the land in dispute at any time within six months before the institution of the suite Is the plaintiff's allegation of dispossession true? In the decision of this issue, however, he went first into the question of preferential title which he decided in favour of the defendants. He next proceeded to deal with the question of possession. With regard to this, he observed that both parties had adduced oral evidence in support of their respective allegations, and that the crucial point was whether the plaintiffs had been in lawful possession of the land within the statutory period of six months. This question he answered in the negative, for the reason that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their title...
Suchand Ghosal Vs. Balaram Mardana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal1
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff, is by virtue of transfer from the defendant No. 9, a co-sharer to the extent of 1/12th in a mourasi jama with the defendants 1 to 8, and has brought this suit to recover from them certain sums of money claimed by him from them on account of sums deposited by him under Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code together with costs. The decree in respect of which these sums, were, deposited, was, passed in a suit brought by one of several co-sharer landlords against defendants 1 to 8 alone for rent. In execution of that decree there was a sale and it purported to be of the entire holding notwithstanding the fact that the present plaintiff, one of the co-sharers, was not a party to the suit.2. To have the sale set aside the present plaintiff applied to the Court under Section 310A and made the prescribed deposits. This was twice done successfully, and the result has been that the holding is in the possession of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to...
Tarini Kumar Dutt and ors. Vs. Gopeswar Pal Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.391
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside the abatement of an appeal from original decree under Order XXII, Rule 9, Sub-rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. There is no dispute as to the facts. The sole respondent in the appeal Gopeshwar Pal Chowdhury died on the 6th October 1909. No application to bring his legal representatives on the record as required by Rule 4 was made within the prescribed time, namely, six months from the date of death as provided in Article 177 of the second Schedule of the Limitation Act. The result was that on the 6th April 1910, the appeal abated under Order XXII, Rule 4, Sub-rule 3. The present application was made on the 25th April 1910. The question which requires consideration is, whether upon this application the abatement should be set aside. The abatement can be set aside only if it is proved under Rule 9 Sub-rule (2) that the appellant was prevented by any sufficient reason from continuing the appeal. It is stated in the affidavit filed o...
In Re: Kali Prosanno Bose Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.622
1. The Rule now under consideration was issued under Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act of 1879, and called upon two muktears, Kali Prasanna Basu Chowdhry and Kali Kumar Basu Chowdhry, who practise at Munshigunge to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed on the ground that they have been previously convicted of a Criminal offence implying a defect of character so as to unfit them to be muktears. It appears that the muktears laid claim to a chur which has recently been formed in the river Padma near Munshigunge. This led to disputes followed by Criminal proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The result was that the chur was attached and the Collector settled the property with one Arab Ali. On the 17th September 1906 there was an unlawful assembly on the attached chur : this led to a prosecution of all the persons who had taken an active part as members of the unlawful assembly. They were convicted, and their conviction was subsequently affirmed ...
Golap Khan Vs. Bhola Nath Marik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.481
1. We are invited in this rule to set aside an order by which the Court below has declined to investigate the claim put forward by the petitioner in an apportionment case under the Land Acquisition Act. The circumstances under which our interference is sought are not disputed. On the 21st August 1909, the Collector made his award and as there was a dispute as to the apportionment of the Compensation, he made a reference to the Civil Court. The dispute was amongst three persons, one of whom Amulya Charan Marik, had put forward a claim to a third share of the compensation money on the 30th June 1909. Before the reference was made by the Collector, the present petitioner had obtained an attachment upon the fund in Court in so far as it represented the interest of Amulya Charan Marik. After the reference and during the pendency of the proceedings in the Civil Court, on the 4th September 1909, Amulya Charan Marik put in a petition of compromise by which he abandoned his claim to the compens...
W.M. Grant Vs. Ram Rakhar Bhagat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.501
1. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the Special Judge at Bhagalpur in suits under Section 105 of the Tenancy Act.2. There were also two Rules issued in case it should be held that there was no appeal. We are inclined to hold that there is no appeal as regards the finding that the present rent must be maintained inasmuch as the plaintiff has failed to prove any excess.3. In the case of Rameshwar Singh v. Bhooneswar Jha 4 C.L.J. 138 : 33 C. 837, it was laid down in a case, where enhancement was claimed on both the grounds on which it is claimed here, that when the Special Judge holds in such a case that no case has been made out for enhancement on any of the grounds stated in the application, this is a decision settling a rent within the meaning of Section 109(3) of the Act and consequently no second appeal lies to the High Court. In the case of Haj Kumar Pratap Sahay v. Ram Lal Singh 5 C.L.J. 538, to which one of us was a party, this case was distinguished but not dissented fr...
Mohendra Ghoshal and ors. Vs. Bhuban Mardana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.810
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff is, by virtue of a transfer from the defendant No. 9, a co-sharer to the extent of l-12th in a mourasi jama with the defendants Nos. 1 to 8 and has brought this suit to recover from them certain sums of money claimed by him from them on account of sums deposited by him under Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code together with costs. The decree in respect of which these sums were deposited was passed in a suit brought by one of several co-sharer landlords against defendants Nos. 1 to 8 alone for rent. In execution of that decree there was a sale and it purported to be of the entire holding notwithstanding the fact that the present plaintiff, one of the co-sharers, was not a party to the suit.2. To have the sale set aside the present plaintiff applied to the Court under Section 310A and made the prescribed deposits. This was twice done successfully, and the result has been that the holding is in the possession of the plaintiff and the defendants ...
Sarba Sundari Dasi Vs. Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.490
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order by the Court below under Order XXI, Rule 60, of the Code of 1908, which corresponds with Section 280 of the Code of 1882. ft appears that the petitioner before us in execution of a decree for arrears of rent attached the disputed property, whereupon the opposite party preferred a claim under Order XXI, Rule 58, of the Code on the allegation that they were in possession of the property which was not liable to be sold in execution of the decree obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon contended that Order XXI, Rule 58, had no application by reason of the provisions of Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That section provides that, Sections 278 to 283 and 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not apply to a tenure or holding attached in execution of a decree for arrears due thereon. The claimants in answer to this objection contended that the property attached was neither a tenure nor a holding within the meaning of t...
Lakhatullah Sheikh and ors. Vs. Bishambar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.577
1. In my opinion this appeal must be dismissed on the ground that this is an attempt by the defendants to vary a written and registered agreement, to which Section 92 of the Evidence Act applies, by a subsequent oral agreement. The agreement is none the less oral because it is to be inferred from the conduct of the parties. The judgment of Mr. Justice Richardson is correct and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.2. The other appeals will be governed by this decision....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »