Kolkata Court July 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.
Khirode Chandra Ghoshal and anr. Vs. Saroda Prosad Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.436
1. Wearer invited in this Rule to set aside an order, by which the Court below has refused an application made by the petitioners under Section 4 of the Partition Act of 1893. The petitioners were two of the defendants in a suit for partition of joint property, commenced by the plaintiff opposite party, who has purchased an one-fourth share from one of the share-holders. In the schedule attached to the plaint. The subject-matter of the litigation was described In five parcels, the first of which, covering an area of two and a-half bighas, was said to be the family dwelling house of the defendants, inclusive of tank and appurtenances. The other parcels, which cover about 5 bighas and a-half, appear to adjoin the first parcel. The boundaries given are those of the entire land comprised in the five parcels. A preliminary decree was made on the 23rd February 1909, and we are informed that it was subsequently confirmed on appeal. The title of the plaintiff was declared to an one-fourth shar...
Kumar Bhagabat Pershad Vs. Murari Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.427
1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was brought by Kumar Bhagabat Prasad as reversioner to recover certain family ancestral properties after the death of the last female proprietor. Kumar Hira Lal had two sons, Baij Bahadur and Sukhraj Bahadur. Baij Bahadur died on the 18th November 1866 having, it is alleged, executed on the 6th October 1866 the Will, Exhibit C. Prior to the execution of this Will, Baij Bahadur and his brother Sukhraj Bahadur are alleged to have separated and to have ceased to form a joint family. By that Will, power to adopt was given to Baij Bahadur's widow Jarina Bibee and, on the 1st December 1863, it is alleged that she adopted one Sadho Narain as her husband's son. Sadho Narain died a few days after on the 16th December 1868 and it is alleged that thereafter, on the 17th April 1873, Jarina Bibi adopted Murari Lal, the present defendant, as the adopted son of her husband, and changed his name to Kumar Jairaj. It is alleged that, since that date, Murari ...
Rai Radha Kissen Roy Bahadur and ors. Vs. Baboo Radha Kanta Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.130
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to set aside a revenue sale. The facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiffs were part owners of an estate called Hari Krishna Nossa or Norra bearing Touzi No. 131 of the Patna Collectorate for which estate Rs. 208-0-8 were payable annually as Government revenue. This revenue is received by Government in four instalments and the latest day for payment of one of these instalments fixed under Act XI of 1859 is the 7th June. On the 7th June 1906, the estate was found to be Rs. 2-4-2 in arrear and it was consequently advertised for sale on the 19th September. On the 15th September, the plaintiff's agent Bunsi Lal for the first time, as he says, ascertained that this arrear was outstanding and he at once filed a petition to the Collector asking that officer to accept payment of the arrear and to exempt the mahal from sale under Section 18 of Act XI of 1859. On this petition, the Collector made the following order: 'Accept payment.' Payment was not, ho...
Hiramony Biswas Vs. Musa Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.625
1. We are invited in these appeals to consider the legality of order3 made by the Court below in concurrence with the Court of first instance, granting an application by a judgment-debtor to record an adjustment alleged to have been made out of Court. The decrees now under execution were made on the basis of a mortgage on the 22nd May 1900 for Rs. 2,284, the order absolute was made on the 6th July 1901, followed by successive application for execution in the course of which several payments were made by the judgment-debtor. On the 15th September, 1906, the decree-holder presented his 4th application for execution. It is alleged by the judgment-debtor that in the course of proceedings on the basis of this application, on the 22nd July, 1907, there was a verbal adjustment between the parties, to the effect that the decree-holder upon receipt of Rs. 1,300 would certify full satisfaction of the decree. It was not till the 31st August 1908, however, that the judgment-debtor applied to the C...
British American Tobacco Co., Ld. Vs. Mahboob Buksh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal110
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the British American Tobacco Company, Ld., against Sheikh Mahboob Buksh and Mahomed Ismail for a declaration that the plaintiff Company are the proprietors of the trade-mark, name and label described in the plaint; for an injunction against the defendants restraining them from infringing the same; for an account of profits, and for incidental relief including a claim for damages.2. The case made by the plaint is that Kusi Lal Kabasi was the proprietor of a trade-mark, name and label, known as 'Sri Durga' which was used by him upon packets of cigarettes sold by him and known as 'Sri Durga' cigarettes: that by an Indenture of the 2nd of September, 1908, Kabasi assigned to the plaintiff Company 'all that the trade-mark, name and label known as the 'Sri Durga' trade-mark, name and label used upon packets of cigarettes, and the goodwill of his said business so far as the same related thereto: 'that since the 2nd of September to, 1908, the ...
British American Tobacco Co. Ld. Vs. Mahboob Bux
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.279
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the British American Tobacco Company Limited against Sheikh Mahboob Bux and Mahomed Ismail for a declaration that the plaintiff company are the proprietors of the trade-mark, name and label described in the plaint; for an injunction against the defendants restraining them from infringing the same; for an account of profits and for incidental relief including a claim for damages.2. The case made by the plaint is that Kusi Lal Kabasi was the proprietor of a trademark, name and label, known as Sri Durga, which was used by him upon packets of cigarettes sold by him and known as Sri Durga cigarettes : that by an Indenture of the 2nd of September 1908, Kabasi assigned to the plaintiff company 'all that the trademark, name and label known as the Sri Durga trade-mark, name and label, used upon packets of cigarettes, and the good-will of his said business so far as the same related thereto:' that sinca the 2nd of September 1908, the plaintiff com...
Golap Jan Vs. Bhola Nath Khetry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.255
Pugh, J.1. This is a suit brought by one Golap Jan against Bhola Nath Khetry. The suit is a suit for malicious prosecution.2. The question that has been argued before me is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action.3. The circumstances out of which this case arises are that Golap Jan was a wrestler or an employer of wrestlers and Bhola Nath is a young man of considerable means and apparently of sporting tastes and he agreed with Golap Jan that they should conduct a wrestling entertainment on the Howrah maidan, Golap taking an active part in obtaining wrestlers and Bhola Nath financing the undertaking. After the show had taken place, Golap alleged that Bhola Nath had collected a large sum of money from the gate-money and that he had not rendered an account or given Golap his share. Golap caused a letter of demand to be written claiming a share of Rs. 30,000 alleged to have been collected. This letter is dated the 25th March. On the 29th March 1909, Bholanath laid a complaint in t...
Prasanna Kumar Mookerjee Vs. Burn and Co. Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.270
1. The litigation, which has resulted in this appeal, was commenced by the respondent company against the defendant-appellant for accounts. The trial of the suit extended over many days in the original Court, and the present appeal, which has been preferred against the preliminary decree, has been elaborately argued on both sides. The real merits of the case are, however, comprised in a very narrow compass, and the precise rights and liabilities of the contesting parties are, by no means, difficult to determine. The fact that the contest has been so keen and prolonged, is due to the circumstance that the plaint was not very artistically framed, and questions have been argued both here and in the Court below, which do not properly arise for consideration at the preliminary stage. Before we deal, however, with the argument addressed to us in respect of the subject-matter of the controversy, it is desirable to give an outline of the facts and events which, in our opinion, are established ...
Bhagwat Sahai Vs. BipIn Behari Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal918
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta, dated the 5th May 1905, which reversed those of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, dated the 4th February 1904.2. The sole question for decision on the appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to partition of certain properties as against the opposing respondents.3. In order to dispose of this question, it is sufficient to deal very broadly with the facts. It is enough to say that the appellants are proprietors of a mokarari interest in the properties in question, the opposing respondents being owners of a fractional share in the zemindari interest in the same properties.4. In the judgment appealed against it was held, in accordance with an earlier decision of a Full Bench of the same Court, that the fact of the party on one side of the dispute being in a lower grade of title than those on the other side was not necessarily a bar to partition.5. Their Lordships agree with the opinion of t...
Ekadashi Das and anr. Vs. Chandra Mohan Shaha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.91
1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned District Judge of Midnapore in an application under Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, for rectification of an error which took place at an execution sale. It appears that what actually happened was that one lot out of seven was put up for sale and fetched a sufficient price to cover the decretal amount and that the sale in respect of the other plots was consequently stopped. It appears that two bids which were made for the property to be sold were made in respect of the first lot and there is a note at the foot of the bid-sheet which we are unable to read after a careful consideration in any other way than as Ek number lot and not as Ek lot E as contended by the appellant. But owing to the ambiguity of this note and to the fact of some person inserting a bracket in red ink including the whole of the lots afterwards the sale certificate was drawn up for the whole seven lots. Then an application was made under Section 244 in which it wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »