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.
Syed Mahomed Siddik Vs. Ram Lal Mandar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.4
1. The facts on which this second appeal depends stand thus. One Saudagar Mian mortgaged the properties A and B to the plaintiff decree-holder by a single deed of mortgage as security for money advanced to him. Sometime after the mortgage, the mortgagor sold the property A to the respondent Ram Lal Mandal. In the suit on the mortgage, the decree-holder made both Saudagar Mian and Ram Lal Mandal defendants, and a mortgage-decree was passed against both of them, or rather was passed against the mortgaged property in the hands of both of them. The decree-holder applied for execution in the usual way in execution case No. 667 of 1938 by sale of the mortgage properties, that is, both the parcels A and B. The Munsif, in the exercise of his discretion, a discretion which we remark is vested in law with the Court alone, directed that the property B should be sold first. This did not at all suit the decree-holder, who in conjunction, we do not say collusion, for of that there is no evidence, wi...
Tula Ram Marwari Vs. Mohri Lal Marwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.5
1. This is a second appeal arising out of a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur, dated the 6th July 1908, dismissing the plaintiff's appeal. This suit is for compensation by way of interest on a certain Civil Court deposit, which he says was detained by the Court, from 6th September 1902 till 18th May 1903, owing to unlawful acts on the part of the defendants. Both the lower Courts have thrown out the case on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Article 56 of the Limitation Act. Had either of the Courts taken the trouble to go through the record, as we have done, and satisfied themselves as to the actual facts of this case, we are persuaded that no academical discussion as to what limitation applies to this case would ever have been necessary. But we may say that we entirely disagree with both the lower Courts as regards Article 36. That is for compensation for any malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance independent of contract and not herein specially...
Bankim Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Akhoy Kumar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.41
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to immovable property, for possession, and for mesne profits The case of the plaintiff is that the disputed land which measures about 10 1/2 bighas was held by one Dyam who mortgaged it on the 27th July 1891. In execution of the decree made in the mortgage suit, the property was sold and purchased by the predecessor of the plaintiff on the 15th July 1897. He obtained delivery of possession through Court on the 14th November 1897. He alleges that subsequently the owner of the estate, within which the disputed land is comprised, forcibly evicted him and he has thereupon commenced the present action. His allegation in substance throughout has been that the land is rent-free and that consequently the owner of the estate has no title to it. The contention on behalf of the defendants, the owner of the estate, has been that the land was not lakhiraj, that Dyam had no transferable interest therein and that conse...
Mon Mohan Karmakar Vs. Dwarka Nath Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.55
1. We are invited in this appeal to consider the propriety of an order made by the Court below in concurrence with the Court of first instance, by which execution has been allowed to proceed on the basis of a mortgage decree. On the 13th June, 1904, one Judhistir Karmakar obtained a decree on a mortgage against Shib Chandra Karmakar upon confession of judgment. As the decretal debt was not paid within the period of grace, the decree-holder obtained an order absolute on the 27th August 1904. On the 19th March 1907, the decree-holder assigned the decree in favour of Dwarka Nath Karmakar, called the assignee in these proceedings and now respondent before this Court. On the 6th June 1907, the assignee applied for substitution of his name and for leave to execute the decree. The notice required by Section 232 of the Code of 1882 was served on the transferor and the judgment-debtor on the 18th June 1907. As no objection was taken, the application of the assignee was granted on the 6th July 1...
Jugal Mohini Dasi Vs. Sri Nath Chattrjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.477
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order under Section 170, Sub-section (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, by which an application made by the petitioner for leave to deposit the decretal amount has been refused. It appears that the petitioner is the purchaser of a half share in a tenure. The opposite party is the superior landlord of the tenure-holders and in execution of a decree for arrears of rents against the recorded tenure-holders has got the property advertized for sale. The petitioners applied to the Court below for leave to deposit the money with a view to prevent the sale. The application was opposed by the decree-holder on the ground that Sub-section (3) of Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act had no application. This objection has prevailed and the application has been dismissed.2. In support of the Rule, it has been argued that the view taken by the Court below is opposed to the decision of this Court in the case of Radhika Nath Sarkar v. Rakhal Raj 13 C.W.N. 117...
Sarat Chandra Roy Chowdhry Vs. M.M. Nahapiet
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal907
Pugh, J.1. This is a suit filed by a first mortgagee against his mortgagor and also against the second mortgagee. The second mortgagee's security consists of a second mortgage on the Calcutta property subject to the plaintiffs' first mortgage, and also what is said to be a first mortgage on certain property in the mofussil, and he asks for a decree in his favour for the amount of his claim and for a direction that, in the event of the Calcutta property proving insufficient to pay the first mortgage and also his own, the mofussil property may be sold by this Court. It has become necessary to consider this position because of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. There was a recognised practice on the Original Side of this Court which, as stated by Mr. Justice Sale in Kissory Mohun Roy v. Kally Churn Ghose (1894) I.L.R. 22 Calc. 1001, was to treat the preliminary decree as being in favour not only of the first mortgagee, but also in favour of the second mortgagee, one of the defendants. A fu...
Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhury Vs. Nawab Salimullah Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.21
1. The events antecedent to the litigation, which has culminated in the present appeal, have not formed the subject of controversy before us, and upon the evidence on the record, there is no room for serious dispute as to their true character. One Ananda Chandra Roy, a leading member of the Dacca Bar, was at one time the proprietor of the estate which bore No. 106 on the Revenue Rolls of the Collector of Dacca. Subsequently, upon transactions the details of which are not material for the purpose of the present litigation in 1898, Ananda Chandra transferred a portion of his proprietary interest to two gentlemen by name Garth and Wetherall with the result that the three became joint proprietors of the estate. A sum of about Rs. 2,199 was payable to Government as revenue in respect of this estate. Under the proprietary interest where of there were various tenures held by different persons. Some of these tenures were created by the proprietors after the transfer to Garth and Wetherall, whi...
Mohunt Sheo Nandan Gir Vs. Dhupan Upadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.164
1. The present petitioner claims to be entitled to the management of an endowment in village Nargada in the District of Shahabad and he says that, on the 29th November 1904, Mohunt Ram Gir who had been the Manager of the muth was removed by an order of the District Judge of Shahabad. A vacancy in the office of the Mohunt being thus created, the District Judge appointed Dhupan Gir as manager under Section 5 of Act XX of 1863 until some other person could, by suit, establish his right to succession. There was an appeal against this order but it was confirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner applied under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863 for leave to sue to establish his right to succeed to the managership in place of mahunt Dhupan Gir. Dhupan Gir was not then willing to remain in charge of the muth and a compromise was arrived at. On the 18th January 1908, the District Judge passed the following order: 'Compromised; strike off.' After that order, the petitioner brought suits as manager of the mut...
Narendra Chandra Lahiri Vs. Saroda Kanta Moitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.829
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on two mortgage-bonds whereby the plaintiff seeks to realise a sum of Rs. 15,609-15, as the amount due to him on those bonds in respect of principal and interest. He has joined as defendants to this suit his mortgagor defendant No. 1, and a co-sharer of the mortgagor defendant No. 2, whom ho describes as pro forma defendant.2. No contest arises as to the right of the plaintiff to enforce his security. The only question is, against what is it to be enforced: and this dispute arises out of a fact that the mortgage was of an undivided share, and that since the mortgage there has been a partition suit between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, which has resulted in the allotment of certain portions of the joint estate to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 in severalty so that the undividedshare that belonged to defendant No. 1 at the date of the mortgage is now represented by a share in severalty held by him as a result of the partition carried out un...
Gour Mani Debi Vs. Chairman of the Panihati Municipality and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.864
1. The substantial question of law which calls for decision in this appeal, is one of some novelty, and relates to the right of a degraded Brahmin of the class known as Moriporahs, to officiate, in a specified burning ground, at the cremation of all dead bodies brought there, and of the right of a Municipal Corporation governed by the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884, to create in favour of a member of this class of Brahmins, an exclusive right of this character. The circumstances tinder which this question arises for consideration, have not formed the object of controversy before us. The plaintiff, a Hindu, lady, alleged that she was a member of the class of degraded Brahmins known as Moriporahs: that her father, and before him, his ancestors used to officiate as priests at the funeral ceremony of all dead bodies brought for the purposes of cremation to the burning ghat within the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Panihati; that this right was hereditary in the family ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »