Kolkata Court July 1910 Judgments
Syed Quamzal Huda Vs. Kumud Nath Sen Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.248
1. The plaintiff-appellant brought the suit against the defendants (63 in number) to recover damages caused by the wrongful omission on their part to cut a bund in the river Mohana on the 7th Kartik 1309 and the 7th Kartik 1310 in accordance with the terms of a compromise decree passed between the parties in a suit on the 6th August 1884. The plaintiff is the proprietor of mouzah Raghunathpur and the defendants are the proprietors of mouzah Sartha. There appears to have been a dispute between the proprietors of these two villages with regard to the use of the water flowing down this Mohana River and the right to discharge the surplus water from their villages down this river. The result was a suit in 1884, which was disposed of by the compromise decree of the 6th August 1884 above alluded to. That decree was in favour of the plaintiff who was the pre-decessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff and it provided that the defendants, who were the predecessors-in-interest of the present d...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdhari Sahu Vs. Ram Charitter Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal143
Brett and Vincent, JJ.1. The plaintiff and the defendant who are the appellant and the respondent, respectively, in the present appeal are two brothers, and after the death of their father they seem to have quarrelled and to have made two or three ineffectual attempts to divide between them the property-left by their father. Having failed, they on the 12th March, 1907, jointly executed and. registered an ekrarnama, or deed of agreement, by which they agreed to refer their dispute to five persons as arbitrators, who were also to effect a partition between them of the property: On the 15th April, 1907, the award was delivered and, on the 6th July, 1907, the plaintiff-appellant applied to the Court under Section 525 of the old Code of Civil Procedure to have the award filed in Court and a decree passed in accordance therewith. The written award appears to have been kept in the custody of one of the arbitrators and, in the application, there was a prayer that that arbitrator should be dire...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath Bidyadhar Vs. Dambarudhar Mahapatra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal278
Carnduff and Richardson, JJ.1. These three appeals arise put of three suits which were, by consent of parties, heard together and disposed of by the same judgment. The undisputed facts may be thus shortly stated.2. The appellant is the proprietor of Killah Ambo in the district of Balasore in Orissa. In this killah the right of primogeniture prevails, the estate being impartible and descending on the death of the proprietor to his nearest male heir. The respondents are the agnates of the proprietor, who is the appellant before us, and whose ancestors assigned the lands in suit, subject to a 'light tribute' equivalent to the Government revenue, to the ancestors of the respondents in lieu of maintenance. The respondents in Section A. Nos. 1181 and 1182 base their title on two ancient sanads of the year 1812, while the respondent in the remaining appeal bases his title on a rafanama filed in 1886 in a Civil Appeal between his father and the present appellant's grandfather.3. Orissa, it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dhari Sahu Vs. Ram Charitar Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.333
1. The plaintiff and the defendant who are the appellant and the respondent respectively in the present appeal, are two brothers and after the death of their father, they seem to have quarrelled and to have made two or three ineffectual attempts to divide between them the property left by their father. Having failed, they on the 12th March 1907, jointly executed and registered an ekrarnamah, or deed of agreement, by which they agreed to refer their dispute to five persons as arbitrators who were also to effect a partition between them of the property On the 15th April 1907, the award was delivered and on the 6th July 1907, the plaintiff-appellant applied to the Court under Section 525 of the old Code of Civil Procedure to have the award filed in Court and a decree passed in accordance therewith. The written award appears to have been kept in the custody of one of the arbitrators and in the application, there was a prayer that that arbitrator should be directed to produce the award in C...
Tag this Judgment!Ganada Dasi Vs. Maharaj Adhiraj Bijay Chand Mahatap Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.346
Vincent, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows:--One Fakir Roy was the patnidar of lot Jadabbati under the Burdwan Raj. In the year 1900, certain Chowkidary Chakran lands situate within that lot were settled by Government with the Maharaja of Burdwan and he again settled them in patni with Fakir Roy on the 4th May 1903. On the 23rd December 1903, Fakir Roy transferred his rights in these Chowkidary Chakran lands to the defendant-appellant. On the 14th May 1904, the parent patni lot Jadabbati was sold for arrears of rent under the patni Regulation and was bought in by the Raj. In the lease of the Chowkidari Chakran lands, there was a condition that, if the patni right in lot Jadabbati was transferred for arrears of rent or became extinct, the pudni right in the Chakran lands should similarly be transferred or become extinct.2. In the present case, the Maharaja seeks to obtain possession of the Chowkidari Chakran lands in this mahal by virtue of this condition in the lease. His suit...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Sahay Singh Vs. Abdul Gani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.765
1. We are invited in this appeal to set aside an order of the Court below under Section 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907, by which a transfer made in favour of the appellant by one Nilkamal Bhattacharya, who has now been adjudged an insolvent has been annulled as not made in good faith and for valuable consideration. The circumstances, under which the order has been made, are not the subject of controversy between the parties. On the 29th July 1908,'Nilkamal Bhuttacharya transferred the disputed land and house to the appellant Lalji Sahai Singh for a consideration of Rs. 1,250. On the 22nd January 1909, Nilkamal made an application to be adjudged an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act. The order of adjudication was made on the 2nd March following, and on the same day, the Nazir of the Court of the District Judge of Dacca was appointed Receiver. On the 16th March 1909, the fourth and fifth creditors of the insolvent made an application for an order under Section 36 ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Pershad Vs. Harihar Charan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal60
Brett and Vincent, JJ.1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce six mortgage bonds, all covering the same property, and also, for redemption of a prior mortgage held by the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, covering only a portion of this property. It appears that the property, the subject of these six mortgages, was a 3 anna 4 dam share of village Satwaj appertaining to estate Ramporeteni. This share on a partition of the village being made by the Collector, was converted into a separate estate in 1903 or 1904. In consequence some of the earlier mortgages describe the property as a 3 annas 4 dam share of village Satwaj appertaining to estate Ramporeteni, while those of later dates describe it as 16 annas of estate Towji No. 693. The defendant No. 1, the mortgagor, did not dispute the mortgages or that the debts claimed thereunder were due from him, but he pleaded that the clause relating to compound interest was not enforceable as it was in the nature of...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Prasad Vs. Tek NaraIn Mahtoon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.330
1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to . enforce six mortgage bonds, all covering the same property, and also for redemption of a prior mortgage held by the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, covering only a portion of this property. It appears that the property, the subject of these six mortgages, was a 3 anna 4 dam share of village Satnag appertaining to estate Rampore Teni. This share, on a partition of the village being made by the Collector, was converted into a separate estate in 1903 or 1904. In consequence some of the earlier mortgages describe the property as a 3 anna 4 dam share of village Satnag appertaining to estate Rampore Teni, while those of later dates describe it as 16 annas of Touzi No. 693 The defendant No. 1, the mortgagor, did not dispute the mortgages or that the debts claimed there under were due from him, but he pleaded that the clause relating to compound interest was not enforceable as it was in the nature of a penalty. The defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Samir-ud-dIn Vs. Kadar Moyee Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.691
1. We are invited in this appeal, which has been preferred under Section 46, Sub-section (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, to set aside an order dismissing a petition for insolvency under Sub-section (1) of Section 15. The appellant Shaik Samir-ud-din presented a petition upon the allegation that his debts amounted to more than Rs. 500 which he professed his inability to pay and prayed that he might be adjudged an insolvent under the provisions of the Act. Two creditors were named in the petition, one of whom alone appeared to contest the application. The petitioner was examined, and as soon as he deposed that he had transferred a portion of his property in lieu of dower, the learned District Judge held that he had committed an act of bad faith which disentitled him to the protection of the Act. In this view, he dismissed the application. The petitioner has now appealed to this Court.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that the...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Basu Mallik Vs. Kamini Mohan Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.721
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action for rent. The plaintiffs claim rent at the rate of Rs. 152-13-3 a year. The defendant asserts that the rent payable is only Rs. 111-3 a year. The sole point in controversy between the parties, therefore, relates to the amount of rent annually payable. The tenancy appears to have been created by a lease granted on the 11th January 1871 for a period of ten years. After the expiry of the term of this lease, another lease was granted on the 22nd August 1881, also for a term of 10 years. Since the termination of this period no fresh document has been executed, but the defendant has continued in occupation upon payment of the rent stated in the second lease. The determination of the liability of the defendant turns consequently upon the legal effect of these two documents. In the lease of 1871, the rent is stated to be Rs. 119-8-3 in the body of the document; but in the schedule attached thereto, there is an elaborate statement of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »