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.
Madhab Moni Dasi Vs. Pamela Lambert
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.537
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 Madhab Moni 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 to 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 assignee, and the usual ...
Amjad Ali Vs. Ali HussaIn Johar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.574
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order by which the Court below has dismissed an application by the petitioner under Order XXXIX, Rule 7, of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, for inspection of the disputed property, and for the preparation of an inventory of the structures, fixtures and movables on the premises. The circumstances, under which the application was made, are not open to dispute. On the 18th February 1910, the plaintiff commenced an action for ejectment of the defendants. . His allegation was that by a lease granted on the 31st December 1906, the disputed premises were let out to the first and second defendants for a term of three years with a covenant neither to assign the lease nor sub-let the premises; that in contravention of this covenant, they transferred the lease-hold interest to the third defendant, and that although the term of the tenancy has expired, the defendants have neither obtained a renewal of the lease, nor vacated the premises. He further ...
Hari Narayan Singh Deo Vs. Sriram Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal723
Collins, J.1. The appellants are the Rajah of the Pachete Estate and the Manager thereof under Act VI of 1876.2. The question in the case is as to the right to the minerals lying under a certain village called Petena, situate within the ancestral zemindari of the first appellant. The case has been left singularly bare of evidence, and must be decided chiefly by giving effect to the proper presumptions arising out of a small number of ascertained facts. Happily the field of controversy has been narrowed by certain concurrent findings of fact. Both Courts are agreed that about 60 years ago, in the time of the first plaintiff's predecessor, a transaction took place whereby the latter appropriated to a certain Hindu Idol known as Thakur Gopi Nath Jiu, of whom certain persons known in these proceedings as the Goswamis, or Gossains, were the shebaits or priests, an interest of some sort in the village of Petena, at an annual rental of Rs. 22-15-6. There is no document or evidence defining th...
Agarjan Bibi Vs. Panaulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal687
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff-respondents have brought this suit for the joint possession of land.2. It has been found by the lower Appellate Court that this land was the raiyati jote of two brothers, Jamal and Kamal, who were entitled to the same in equal moieties. Jamal purported to transfer his 8 annas share to the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 to 4 on Kamal's death succeeded to his eight annas, and they contest the plaintiff's claim to joint possession on the ground that the raiyati jote is not transferable. The lower Appellate Court, in reversal of the Court of first instance, Bas passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour for 'possession m their purchased eight annas share in the disputed land,' holding that the defendants 1 to 4 had no right to plead the non-transfer-ability of the holding.3. From this decree the defendants 1 to 4 have appealed, and the only point is whether it is open to them to question the validity of the plaintiff's transfer.4. It is common ground that...
Agarjan Bibi and ors. Vs. Panaulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.452
1. The plaintiff-respondents have brought this suit for the joint possession of land.2. It has been found by the lower appellate Courts that this land was the ryoti jote of two brothers, Jam til and Kamal, who were entitled to the same in equal moieties. Jamal purported to transfer his 8 anntis share to the plaintiff. Defendants Nos. l to4, on Kamal's death, succeeded to his 8 annas, and they contest the plaintiff's claim to joint possession on the ground that the ryoti jote is not transferable. The lower appellate Court, in reversal of the Court of first instance, has passed a decree in the plaintiffs' favour for 'possession in their purchased 8 annas share in the disputed land,' holding that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 had no right to plead the non-transferability of the holding.3. From this decree the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have appealed and the only point is whether it is open to them to question the validity of the plaintiffs' transfer.4. It is common ground that the jote was not t...
MartIn and Co. Vs. Fakir Chand Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.241a
1. This case arises out of a suit for damages for short delivery against a Railway Company. Section 77 of the Railways Act IX of 1890, provides that no such claim shall be allowed unless the claim has been preferred in writing to the Railway administration within 6 months from the date of the delivery of the goods, etc. In the present case such a claim seems to have been made within the time limited but the letter containing the notice was not registered. Section 150 of the Act provides that a notice or document required or authorised by the Act may be served in one of three ways: (a) by delivering the notice or other document to the manager or agent, (b) by leaving it at his office or (c) by forwarding it by post in a prepaid letter addressed to the manager or agent at his office and registered under Part III of the Indian Post Office Act, 1866.2. The first clause seems to contemplate a delivery by the claimant in person or through his agent or servant. We do not think a delivery of a...
Dewan Amir HossaIn Khan and ors. Vs. Nanhak Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.424
Chatterjee, J.1. The plaint in this case was filed on the 8th of February 1905, one day before the prescribed time limit, on insufficient, stamp. The Court granted one week's time for making up the deficit the 15th of February was, therefore, the last day for the purpose. The plaintiff, however, put in the deficit on the 16th of February one day too late. The Court ordered that a petition for extension of the time fixed, by one day, might-be filed and such a petition, was filed on the 18th February and the case was registered on that date. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and the Court of first instance accepted the plea and dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge has upset the judgment of the first Court and remanded the case for trial on the merits.2. It is contended in second appeal before us that the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong, that the Court was bound to reject the plaint on the failure of the plaintiff t...
Harendra Lal Roy Vs. Purna Chandra Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.368
1. There is no room for controversy as to the events antecedent to the litigation out of which the present appeal arises. The plaintiffs and the defendant are owners of estate Lot Amirpore, which bears No. 2469 on the revenue rolls of the Collector of the 24-Pergannahs. The extent of the share of the plaintiffs in the estate is three-fourths and that of the defendant one-fourth. It is not disputed that the parties used to deposit separately the share of the Government revenue respectively payable by them. The defendant, however, made default in payment of his share of the Government revenue due on the 12th January 1905. The result was that the estate was sold under Act XI of 1859 on the 27th March 1935, and, although its value is stated to exceed three lacs of Rupees, it was purchased by one Sanand Chandra Roy for Rs. 96,000. The plaintiffs then applied for reversal of the sale, substantially on the ground that the. sale was irregular because the Touzi number had been erroneously state...
Jadu Nath Bose Vs. Srimati Prem Moni Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.414
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The point . on which this' suit has been decided by the lower appellate Court in the plaintiff's favour may fairly be called one of first impression, and this will be apparent when it is seen what it really involves. By the suit it is prayed that the Court will pass an order directing that the execution of the decree passed in Suit No. 1157 of 1899 may be taken out against defendant No. 1 who is the real judgment-debtor in that decree by substituting his name in the place of defendant No. 2 who is but a nominal judgment-debtor therein, on establishment of the fact that it is the defendant No. 1 who is wholly responsible for the amount due under that decree, and, a declaration was also sought by way of a prelude to this relief. The circumstances which induced the plaintiff to launch this claim are briefly these: The plaintiff is a proprietor who brought a rent suit against his recorded tenant with the result that in execution of the decree passed in his favour t...
Bejoy Chand Mahatap Bahadur Zemindar Vs. P.K. Mozumdar--patnidar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.582
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the zemindar in a case for apportionment of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that under the zemindar, was the patnidar (the present respondent) and under the latter, were two raiyats in occupation of the land. The Collector by his award made on the 28th August 1906 apportioned the entire compensation money between the raiyats on the one hand and the superior landlords, that is the zemindar and patnidar, on the other. He stated expressly that these two: landlords were allowed jointly twenty years' purchase of the raiyati jama of Rs. 1-9, i.e., Rs. 33-12-5. The patnidar thereupon applied for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the raiyats ought to pay to their landlords jointly thirty times the annual rent. There was no similar application on behalf of the zemindar. When the matter came to be heard by the Civil Court the raiyats compromised the matter in dispute an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »