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.
In Re: Parasea Collieries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal629
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This reference under Section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899 has been placed before us by the learned Advocate-General, who has said all that could be legitimately urged on behalf of the view asserted by the Board of Revenue; but he has failed to convince us. The facts are simple. The document which has been placed before us for adjudication is a lease for 999 years, which recites at length the previous title and a succession of agreements in relation to the properties comprised in it. The leased properties were at one time vested in the Raneegunge Coal Association, Ld., but to secure a debenture loan they were assured to trustees, of whom C.C. Kilburn alone is now alive. Though the debenture loan has been discharged, there has been no reconveyance. The Company went into liquidation in 1899, but merely for the purpose of reconstruction, and on this reconstruction an agreement was made for the transfer to another Company, bearing the same name, and in t...
Baijnath Goenka Vs. Rani Sashirama Kumari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.789
Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit of a very unusual character. The defendant-appellant, has fully made out (and indeed it has been hardly contested) that there is no cause of action. The defendant brought a suit against the plaintiff's father on the 28th August 1905, and that suit was dismissed on the 27th April 1907. During the pendency of the suit, defendant applied for attachment before judgment and upon the dismissal of the suit the present plaintiff applied, under Section 448 of the last Civil Procedure Code, for withdrawal of attachment, and the suit having been, as I have said, dismissed, an order was passed for such withdrawal. The defendant, however, preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal of the 27th April 1907, and it is stated that the appeal having been filed, the plaintiff was apprehensive that the defendant might attempt to revive the attachment before judgment, which had been withdrawn on the 10th May 1907; and because of his apprehension in this respect, he bro...
In Re: Halima Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal870
Pugh, J.1. This is an application in the matter of a wakf executed by Halima Khatun to obtain the sanction of the Court to the sale of a small piece of land in Park Street to Mr. Galstaun at what appears to be a very satisfactory price. On the merits of the application. I should have no difficulty, but it is unnecessary for me to express an opinion thereon, because I have come to the conclusion that the matter is not properly before me.2. The point involved is really one of procedure, though it involves a question of the jurisdiction of the Court also--the question being whether an order, such as is prayed for, can be made upon a petition instituted In the matter of a Trust and without a suit.3. There have been conflicting decisions as to the power of the Court to accede to the prayer of a petition such as this, but I am also called upon to refer to a similar, but rather different, question, because the argument in favor of the jurisdiction has been mainly based on a discussion of an e...
In Re: Waqf Executed by Halima Khatoon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.33
Pugh, J.1. This is an application in the matter of a waqf executed by Halima Khatoon to obtain the sanction of the Court to the sale of a small piece of land in Park Street to Mr. Galstaun at what appears to be a very satisfactory price. On the merits of the application I should have no difficulty but it is unnecessary for me to express an opinion thereon, because I have come to the conclusion that the matter is not properly before me.2. The point involved is really one of procedure though it involves a question of the jurisdiction of the Court also. The question being whether an order such as is prayed for can be made upon a petition entitled in the matter of a trust and without a suit.3. There have been conflicting decisions as to the power of the Court to accede to the prayer of a petition such as this but I am also called upon to refer to a similar but rather different question, because the argument in favour of the jurisdiction has been mainly based on a discussion of an earlier q...
Adhar Chandra Dutt and anr. Vs. Kirtibash Bairagee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.638
1. The question which arises in this second appeal is as to the validity of the acts of a de facto guardian in alienating the estate of a minor married Hindufemale during the minority of her legal guardian the husband.2. The facts are simple. The girl inherited an undivided third from her father who took the estate from his father by way of gift. The gift was saddled with an injunction to keep up the family Durga pujah. The girl after her marriage continued to liye with her grandmother the widow of the donor who was her de facto guardian.3. The puja dalan fell into disrepair and a meeting of the co-sharers, at which the grandmother, Tarangini Dassi, represented Latibala Dossy, the minor daughter of Keshab Chandra Sirkar, the donee of the property, was held.4. It was found that the only way to raise funds to repair the dalan was by selling some of the joint family property. So a portion was sold and the repairs partially effected. This transaction has never been impugned though it invol...
Ghanashyam Misser Vs. Kumar Kalanund Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.790
1. This second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree of the Special Judge on an order by the Settlement Officer in a case under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The case clearly raises a question of status and we, therefore, held at the outset that a second appeal would lie. There were numerous tenants against whom the plaintiff sought for a determination of fair rent in the lower Courts. The defendant No. 19, however, is the sole appellant before us. The first objection taken before us is that the lower appellate Court's judgment is not according to law. We are unable to see this. He sets out generally the points for decision and deals with all the cases either in batches or separately. He deals with the case of defendant No. 19 separately, though not so fully as was done by the Settlement Officer; but in a judgment of affirmance this is not necessary. The learned Settlement Officer has dealt with the case of each defendant or batch of defendants separately. He finds that d...
Mir Eusuff Ali and ors. Vs. Panchanan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.842
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants in an action to enforce a mortgage security executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff-respondent by the first two defendants on the 20th September, 1897. A large number of properties was included in the mortgage bond. On the 9th November, 1898, the mortgagors sold eleven of these plots to the mortgagee, and agreed that a sum of Rs. 447-9-10 was to be deducted from the amount then due on the mortgage. Shortly after, on the 22nd April, 1899, the mortgagors transferred another parcel to a stranger, by name Herasatulla, who paid Rs. 75, to the mortgagee and obtained a release from him in respect of the property purchased. On the 30th May, 1906, the plaintiff commenced the present action for recovery of the mortgage money with interest. He made allowance in the plaint for the two payments already mentioned, as also for another small. sum paid in 1901, and he asked for recovery of the balance by sale of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›