Kolkata Court June 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.
Kali NaraIn Bhaumik Vs. Hari Nath Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.487
1. This is an application by the plaintiffs to set aside a decree of dismissal made by the Court below. The plaintiffs agreed to purchase certain properties from the defendant. The latter, however, in breach of this agreement, sold the property to other persons, with the result that the plaintiffs were obliged to bring a suit for specific performance of the contract. That suit was decreed; but the defendant did not execute the conveyance as directed by the decree; consequently, the Court executed the conveyance on behalf of the vendor. The plaintiffs, now seek to recover from the defendant by way of mesne profits, a certain sum of money which he alleges is payable by the defendant under the terms of the conveyance. The Small Cause Court Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that it cannot properly be described as one for mesne profits--a view in support of which plausible arguments may possibly be advanced. But obviously the ground upon which the suit has been dismissed is essenti...
Budhan Shah Vs. Sita Nath Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.578
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made by the Judge of a Court of Small Causes under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of 1908. The effect of the order is to set aside on review a decree by which the learned Judge had dismissed a suit as barred by limitation. There has been no controversy as to the facts before us, The suit was filed on the 4th September 1909 and the claim was valued at Rs. 150. The Court-fee paid on the plaint was Rs. 6 only, whereas the amount payable was Rs. 11-4. Thereupon the learned Judge recorded the following order on the 8th September: The deficit Court-fee stamp worth Rs. 5 to be filed in one week.' It will be observed that the amount of deficit Court-fee was incorrectly stated, as the deficiency was Rs. 5-4. The Court-fee was deposited not within the time allowed, but on the 18th September. No order appears to have been made on that day; but on the 20th September, the Registrar of the Court recorded the following order:...
Rukminimoyi Vs. Poran Chunder Bhera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.823
1. This is an appeal against an order made by the Court below under Order XLI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, read with Section 2 of the Code. The appellant objected to proceedings in execution of a decree made against him. His objection was overruled on the merits in the Court of first instance on the 2nd March 1909. This order was clearly a decree because it was an order made under Section 47 of the Code. The appellant then appealed to the District Judge. When the appeal was called on for hearing on the 3rd August 1909, his Pleader intimated to the Court that he had, no instructions. The appeal was consequently dismissed. He subsequently made an application to set aside this order, under Rule 19 of Order XLI. The learned Judge, however, refused to re-admit the appeal. Up to the present time, no appeal has been preferred against the order of refusal. We are now concerned, therefore, with the appeal directed against the order of the 3rd August 1909. A preliminary objec...
Tara Sundari Debi Vs. Sarada Charan Bandopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.80
1. We are invited in these appeals to consider the legality of an order made by the Court below upon an application for execution of a decree obtained by one Sarada Charan Banerjee against Tara Sundari Debi. The circumstances, under which the order in question, against which, both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor have appealed, was made, have not formed the subject of controversy before us. In execution of a decree for money obtained by Sarada Charan against Tara Sundari, he applied for attachment and sale of the rights of the latter under a deed of gift executed in her favour by her father on the 6th September, 1372. The judgment-debtor objected on the ground that her interest was not liable to be attached under Section 266 of the Code of 1882, which corresponds with Section 60 of the Code of 1908. Her contention, in substance, was that the interest created in her favour by the deed of gift, was not saleable property over which she had a disposing power which she might exerci...
Satis Chandra Giri Mohant Vs. Gopal Chandra Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.627
1. The question of law raised in this appeal is of considerable importance, and relates to the amount of Court-fee payable upon a plaint presented for the institution of a suit under Section 108 of the Bengal Tenancy Act., The first paragraph of that section provides, that a suit may be instituted before a Revenue Officer at any time within three months from the date of the certificate of the final publication of the record-of-rights under Sub-Section 2 of Section 103 A; such suit is instituted by the presentation of a plaint on stamped paper for the decision of any dispute regarding any entry which a Revenue Officer has made in, or any omission which the said officer has made from, the record, whether such dispute is between the landlord and tenant, or between landlords of the same or of neighbouring Estates, or between tenant and tenant, or as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant, exists, or as to whether land held rent-free is properly so held, or as to any other matte...
Maheswar Panda and ors. Vs. Baidya Nath Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.7
1. The point that arises in this second appeal is one of limitation. It is admitted that so far as the defendants Nos. 2, 6, 8, are concerned, the judgment of the Subordinate Judge cannot be inpugned.2. As regards defendant No. 1, it is urged that certain payments made by him at intervals of three years must be taken to have been paid as interest and would, therefore, save limitation under Section 20. Now there is a series of cases which are referred to by the Subordinate Judge in his judgment in which it has been held that the plaintiff is entitled to apply any money paid to him to interest as long as any interest is outstanding; but there is parallel to this a long series of cases, of which the case of Hanmant Mal Motichand v. Rambabai 3 B. 198 is the leading case, that when the defendant had at different times made payments to the plaintiff, who was his creditor, in reduction of the general balance of account against him, but without intimating that any of such payments was to be ap...
Ramanand Singh and ors. and Adhan Singh Vs. in Both Ram Saran Singh an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.27
1. The facts of the litigation out of which these appeals arise are as follows:--In August 1883, one Saligram Singh died leaving two widows Surat Koer and Rajpati Koer; these ladies are defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in suit No. 149, Appeal No. 176 and defendants Nos. 6 and 5 in Suit No. 175 corresponding with Appeal No. 175 and they succeeded to the possession of his estate. On the 3rd June 1907, Surat Koer executed a mokarari lease in favour of her brother who is the appellant in Appeal No. 176 demising to him her share of the property left by her husband; and also all properties acquired by her after his death and on the 15th July 1907, Rajpati the other co-widow executed a mokarari lease of her share in her husband's property and any property acquired after his death in favour of her brother and brother's cons who are the appellants in Appeal No. 175 of 1908.2. The plaintiffs who allege that they are the reversioners to the estate of Saligram Singh seek in this suit for the declaration th...
Jai Nath Jha and ors. Vs. Kamala Nath Jha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.31
1. The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs (appellants) seeking to have set aside the decision of the District Judge of Durbhanga, dismissing an application made by them under Section 525 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, that an award be filed in Court. The plaintiffs are the members of the elder branch of a Hindu family of which Mon Mohan Jha was the original head and the defendants are members of the junior branch. The plaintiffs are grandsons of Mon Mohan Jha through his elder son Ganganath Jha and the defendants are one Kamala Nath Jha, the grandson of Mon Mohan Jha through his younger son Tejnath Jha, and Sibnath Jha his grandson through Poovinath Jha the son of Tejnath Jha. The family was originally a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law: and on the death of Mon Mohan Jha, Ganganath Jha, his elder son, became the karta. On the death of Kamala Nath, his elder son, Poovinath, is said to have become guardian of his younger brother Kamala Nath and on his dea...
Kailas Chandra Mitra Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1910
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.638
1. These five Appeals Nos. 287 and 293 to 301 of 1908 are preferred by Kailas Chandra Mitra, executor to the estate of the late Rai Abhoy Charan Mitra Bahadur, and they arise out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1891. The lands are part, of a very considerable area taken by the Government for the improvement of the Port of Chittagong. On the 9th of November 1903, a declaration was made in respect of these lands under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector took possession in February 1903, and an award was made by him which was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge of Chittagong.2. Now, the lands may be conveniently considered under two heads: first, there are what have been termed the dock lands to which Appeals Nos. 2 37, 298, 299 and 301 relate, and secondly, what have been termed the brick lauds to which Appeal No. 300 relates. In respect of the dock lands which measure 2.26 kanis, the award was at the rate of Rs. 100 per kani; in resp...
SrinaraIn Singh Vs. Sundarbati Kumari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.860a
1. The question, which arises in this second appeal, is one of res judicata and it arises in the same form as in the case of Kali Roy v. Pratap Narain 5 C.L.J. 92, where a conflict arose as in this case between the rate of rent allowed by the previous decree and that entered in the record-of-rights.2. It appears that after the survey and settlement proceedings had been started in 1903, the plaintiff obtained a rent decree in respect of the area admitted by the defendant at the rate of Its. 3-5 a bigha. Now that area was about 4 bighas less than the plaintiff claimed, and the survey authorities found on actual measurement that the true area was 14 bighas and odd as stated by the plaintiff. The defendant's allegation in the suit was that he had held the land as gotya jote at 8 annas a bigha for a very large number of years.3. The Munsif in that suit found that the plaintiff had no village papers, they having been burnt in 1310. He also found that the plaintiff's evidence was on the whole...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »