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.
Manbodh Acharya Vs. Ankata Karu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.415
1. This is a suit for damages between two sets of raiyats, the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had wrongfully come and cut way the crop on his lands. The damages were estimated at Rs. 46-12. The Munsif in the first Court found that the defendant had no possession or title in the land. The Court of appeal also found that he had no such possession and title and that, therefore, he Was liable to damages.2. A preliminary objection is raised that no appeal lies in this case as such a case is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes on the authority of the case of Krishna Prosad Nag v. Maizuddin Biswas 17 C. 707. We find that this is so, and the ruling cited by the other side from Pamu Sanyasi v. Zamindar of Jayapur 25 M. 640 is a wholly different case being a case between landlord and tenant, or at any rate between the plaintiff who alleged that he had been the tenant of the defendant and the defendant, the alleged landlord. It is further argued on behalf of the defendant that the questi...
BipIn Behary Nandan Vs. Jadu Nath Chatterji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.451
Doss, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff, as purchaser of an occupancy holding at a sale held by the landlord for arrears of rent due in respect thereof, to recover khas-possession of the holding. The defendants set up a durjote interest in the holding. The Court below has found as a .fact that the defendants are purchasers of a portion of the holding under a private sale and not under raiyati. The Court below has dismissed the suit being of opinion that the interest of the defendants in the holding amounts to an encumbrance thereon, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to khas-possession of the land unless he annuls the encumbrance under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This is opposed to the ruling in the case of Tomiz-ud-din Khan v. Khoda Newaz Khan 11 C.L.J. 16 : 14 C.W.N. 229 : 5 Ind. Cas. 116, in which it has been held that where an absolute transfer of the interest of a raiyati in a portion of the holding takes place, such transfer is not, within the ...
Basir Gazi Vs. Grija Nath Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.211
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in a suit commenced by the respondents for recovery of possession of land, and in the alternative, for assessment of rent thereon. The Courts below have concurrently made a decree for rent in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant has now appealed to this Court, and on his behalf two objections have been urged against the decision of the Subordinate Judge; namely, first, that the finding of the Courts below upon the question of title is based upon evidence not admissible in law, and secondly, that the question of limitation has not been properly decided.2. In so far as the first of these points is concerned, the facts are as follows. The dispute between the parties was, whether the land claimed by the plaintiffs were situated within the ambit of their estate Touzi No. 136, or that of the defendants Touzi No. 132. A Commissioner was appointed to survey the properties. He based his report upon a copy of the map prepared at the t...
Krishna Chandra Basu and ors. Vs. Mohendra Nath Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.704
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action for recovery of arrears of rent with cesses and damages, from the defendants, who are tenure-holders under them, under a lease granted in their favour on the 17th August 1892. The sole question in controversy between the parties relates to the liability of the tenants-defendants to pay cesses to the landlords-appellants. The covenant in the lease which bears upon this matter is in the following terms: 'I shall never be competent to claim any enhancement in any way upon the said fixed amount of jama, that is Rs. 500 a year at a certain prescribed rate. But you shall pay in addition to the said fixed jama, Road and Public Works cesses at half-anna per rupee as is levied at present according to the instalments given at foot. Besides, you as Mourasi Mukararidars shall be bound according to law to pay any other kind of cess or tax that Government may hereafter impose and you shall continue to pay the same separately in addition t...
Emperor Vs. Tripura Shankar Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal618
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J., Doss and Teunon, JJ.1. An application has been made to us by the Advocate-General, under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for sanction to prosecute Tripura Shankar Sarkar under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The application is based on a petition presented, apparently, at the request of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, and the Advocate-General has relied solely on the allegations contained in that petition and has placed before us no other materials. But it would be a very inadequate treatment of the case were we to dispose of it on these allegations alone, and to arrive at a just determination other matters must be considered. It may be conceded that a comparison of Tripura's deposition before the committing Magistrate with his evidence given in this Court, discloses contradictory statements; but it would be a dangerous doctrine to hold that this alone would justify us in granting a sanction to prosecute for giving false evidence. ...
Madhabmani Dasi Vs. Lambert
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal796
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The substantial question of law which calls for decision in this appeal is, whether an application for order absolute for foreclosure of a decree nisi in a mortgage suit made in favour of the appellant on the 30th March 1904, is barred by limitation. The circumstances under which the question arises for decision are matters of record, and do not admit of any doubt or dispute. On the 30th September 1901, one Amrita Nath Mitter and his sister-in-law, Madhabmani Dasi, as administrators of the estate of Dwarka Nath Mitter, commenced an action to enforce a mortgage security against Pamela Lambert. They joined as parties defendants, the mortgagor and a purchaser of the equity of redemption, as also two daughters of the mortgagor, who, subject to the life-interest of their mother, had apparently a right of maintenance out of the estate of their father held by her. On the 30th March 1904, the suit was decreed against the first two defendants--the mortgagor and her...
Harihar Mukerji Vs. Harendra Nath Mukerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal754
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The question of law raised in this appeal is one of some novelty and relates to the right of a Receiver to take possession of the subject-matter of the litigation in which he has been appointed, without a Succession Certificate from the proper Court. The circumstances under which the question arises for decision are not the subject of controversy before us. One Debendra Nath Mukerjee, a wealthy Hindu, governed by the Dayabhaga law and resident of Kidderpore in the suburbs of this city, died intestate on the 16th July 1907. He left a widow, three sons and five daughters. Shortly after his death, on the 9th December 1907, a suit was commenced by his eldest son, Harendra Nath, for partition of the family properties. On the 4th December 1908, Harendra Nath was appointed Receiver of the subject-matter of the litigation. Part of the estate of Debendra Nath, which had been inherited by his sons, consisted of Government securities of the value of Rs. 20,000, cash ...
Sree Nath Holdar Vs. Sree Knata Holdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.477
Doss, J.1. The plaintiff sued as purchaser of a plot of land for delivery to him of a kobala by the defendant, on his paying to the latter the sum of Rs. 21 as stated by him to be the unpaid balance of the purchase-money. The kobala was executed by the defendant and was presented by him for registration, and after registration it was taken back by him from the Registry Office and is now in his own possession.2. The learned District Judge has found that the plaintiff has not paid any portion of the sum of Rs. 99, which was the purchase-money for the kobala. As the kobala, though executed, has not been delivered to the plaintiff and the latter has not paid any portion of the purchase-money, I am of opinion that the plaintiff has acquired no title to the property. It has been laid down in the cases of Sheo Narain Singh v. Durbari Mahton 2 C.W.N. 207, Mauladan v. Rughu Nandan, Fershad Singh 27 C. 7, Manaji Singh v. Sarat Lal Mahto 4 C.L.J. 334 that mere registration of a deed of sale, unac...
Harihar Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Harnendra Nath Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.416
1. The question of law raised in this appeal is one of some novelty and relates to the right of a Receiver to take possession of the subject-matter of the litigation in 'which he has been appointed, without a succession certificate from the proper Court. The circumstances under which the question arises for decision are not the subject of controversy before us. One Debondra Nath Mukerjee, a wealthy Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga Law, and resident of Kidderpur in the suburbs of this city, died intestate on the 16th July, 1907. He left a widow, three sons and five daughters. Shortly after his death, on the 9th December 1907, a suit was commenced by his eldest son Harendra Nath for partition of the family properties. On the 4th December 1908, Harendra Nath was appointed Receiver of the subject-matter of the litigation. Part of the estate of Debendra Nath, which had been inherited by his sons, consisted of Government securities of the value of Rs. 20,000, cash to the extent of Rs. 25,000 ...
Emperor Vs. Sailendra Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.476
1. An application has been made to us by the Advocate-General under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code for sanction to prosecute Tripura Sankar Sarkar under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The application is based on a petition, presented apparently at the request of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, and the. Advocate-General has relied solely on the allegations contained in that petition and has placed before us no other materials. But it would be a very inadequate treatment of the case were we to dispose of it on these allegations alone, and to arrive at a just determination other matters must be considered.3. It may be conceded that a comparison of Tripura's deposition before the Committing Magistrate with his evidence given in this Court discloses contradictory statements; but it would be a dangerous doctrine to hold that this alone would justify us in granting a sanction to prosecute for giving false evidence. It is necessary for us to consider how it has com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »