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.
Harendra Kumar Bose and ors. Vs. Girish Chandra Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.798
1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of in this petition should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate neglected to enforce the summons issued to compel attendance of the applicant's witnesses. 2. The order which is complained of is one under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the question which we have to decide is, first, whether, in a proceeding under this section, it is obligatory on the Magistrate to enforce the attendance of any witnesses at the instance of the parties, and, secondly, if it is not so obligatory, whether his action in this particular case has resulted in such a denial of justice to the parties bound by the order us to make it incumbent on us to interfere under the special powers placed in our hands by the Charter.3. On the first point, the observation which we have to make is that, under the law, the Magistrate is the sole Judge as to whether proceedings und...
Maharaja Bahadur Sir Prodyot Kumar Tagore Vs. Mahomed HussaIn Khan and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.86
1. The plaintiff-appellant brought the present suit to recover possession of certain lands which are described in Schedules A and B attached to the plaint. The lands in schedule A were claimed as lands included in the holding of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and the lands in Schedule B were stated to be lands of which the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had obtained possession by encroachment on the lands of the plaintiff, the landlord. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 mortgaged their holding to defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 brought a suit on the basis of his mortgage, obtained a decree and, having purchased the lands in execution thereof, took possession. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant No. 1 had acquired no title to the lands in suit because the holding of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and the lands which they had obtained by encroachment were not transferable by custom. It appears that, after the defendant No. 1 had obtained possession, the plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant...
Alikjan Bibi Vs. Rambaran Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.166
1. This is an appeal on behalf of mortgagor defendant in a suit to enforce a mortgage security. The case for the plaintiff is that on the 11th October, 1893, the appellant Alikjan Bibi bororwed Rs. 4,900 from Gopal Chand Agarwala, and executed in his favour the mortgage bond in suit. The plaintiff further alleges that no payments have been made towards the satisfaction of the bond, and that the second defendant, who was indebted to him for a large amount of money for the recovery of which he has obtained a decree against him on the original side of this Court, executed in his favour a trust deed on the 7th September, 1908. On the 15th September, 1906, the plaintiff commenced the present action for recovery of the sum due under the mortgage bond, and he joined as defendants, the mortgagor as well as the representative of the mortgagee whose interest he claims to have acquired under the trust deed. The defendant resisted the claim substantially on three grounds, namely, first, that the p...
Gobinda Rani Dasi Vs. Radha Ballabh Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.118
1. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is one of some novelty and relates to a claim for maintenance put forward by a Hindu son-in-law against his mother-in-law for the maintenance of himself, his wife and children. The events antecedent to the litigation have not been the subject of controversy in this Court, and, upon the evidence on the record are clearly beyond dispute. One Radhika Mohun Das, a wealthy Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga Law and a resident of the town of Dacca, had no sons, but two daughters by name Krishna Preoshi and Brinda Rani. In August 1877, Radhika Mohan gave his second daughter in marriage with the plaintiff who at the time was an infant. The plaintiff came of a family of comparatively limited means and was taken by Radhika Mohan and his wife, the defendant Gobinda Rani, as their gharjamai, that is a son-in-law to be brought up and maintained in the family of the father-in-law. Ever since his marriage the plaintiff has lived in the family of h...
Ramani Debi Vs. Kumud Bandhu Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.126
1. The circumstances antecedent to the litigation, out of which the present appeal arises, may be briefly narrated. On the 18th January 1908, Ramani Debi, the appellant before us, made an application for probate of a Will alleged to have been executed on the 30th November 1893, by her husband Bharat Chandra Mukerjee, who died on the 2nd December 1893. Upon this application, notices were issued in due course, and caveat was entered on the 9th March 1908 by two persons, Kumud Bandhu Mukerjee and Nirode Bandhu Mukerjee, who claimed to be the sons of a cousin of the testator. The case, which was then registered as a contested suit, was from time to time adjourned to suit the convenience of the parties, and was finally set down for disposal on the 28th May 1908. The petitioner on that day asked for an adjournment as her witnesses were not present. This application was refused. She then asked for leave to withdraw the application with liberty to present a fresh application; but permission wa...
Nabadwipa Chandra Shaha Vs. Jugol Dasi Dassya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.214a
1. This is an appeal against a preliminary decree, passed by the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye on the 18th. July 1908,in an action for an account.2. The facts leading up to the suit may be briefly stated. One Bishambhar Shaha was the younger brother of Nawadwipa Chandra Shaha (defendant No. 1) ; and they were members of a joint Hindu family. Bishambhar died in Falgun 1303 (some date in February 1897) leaving two daughters Jogal Dassee Dassya (plaintiff) by his second wife, and Koki Dasya (defendant No. 2) by his third wife. The first and second wives of Bishambhar both predeceased him. His third wife died in Assar 1304 (July 1897). In 1899 the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff and the maternal grandfather of the defendant No.2 applied to the District Judge of Mymensingh for certificates of guardianship, under Act VIII of 1890, in respect of the person and property of the two minors respectively. The defendant No. 1 also filed a similar application. The District Judge, however, on ...
Ananda Mohan Roy Chowdhury Vs. Guru Dayal Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.19
Chatterjee, J.1. The defendant No. 2 was a ryot with a non-transferable right of occupancy in certain lands in the putti of the plaintiff : he sold a portion of his holding to defendant No. 1 in 1309 but defendant No. 1 did not pay rent for the part purchased by him and defendant No. 2 in 1313 executed in favour of the plaintiff a registered istifa by which he surrendered the sold portion to the plaintiff who in his turn absolved defendant No. 2 from future and past liability for the same. After obtaining this surrender, the plaintiff brought this suit for ejectment of defendant No. 1. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit, holding that part surrender was bad and the encumbrance created by the sale could not be got rid of in this way.2. The plaintiff appeals and on his behalf it is contended that the sale of a part of a holding is not an encumbrance within Section 161 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and that under Section 86 of the Act, part surrender is quite valid.3. It has been he...
Kalanand Singh and anr. Vs. Chandra Kishore Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.19a
1. The question which arises in this second appeal is not altogether free from difficulty but after giving it our mature consideration and consulting all the authorities bearing on the equitable question which arises, we can have no doubt how it should be decided. It appears that the decree-holder obtained a decree for rent against one Behari Jha on the 8th February 1905. He applied for execution of that decree for the first time on the 8th February 1908. Notice under Section 248 was issued and on the 3rd April the peon reported that the judgment-debtor was dead. On the 21st April the decree-holder applied for substitution of the heirs and notice was accordingly issued on them under Section 248, Civil Procedure Code. On the 3rd of July 1908, they filed the present objection contending that the execution was barred by limitation, more than three years having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application to execute as against them on the 21st April 1908.2. The decree being o...
Emperor Vs. Surendra Nath Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.629
Mookerjee, J.1. The circumstances, under which the appellant Surendra Nath Ghosh has been convicted of an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, have been narrated in the opinion recorded by my learned brothers Harington and Teunon, and need not be recapitulated at full length. On the 4th August, 1909, the appellant deposed as a witness in a case under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which he himself was a party. He stated inter alia as follows: 'I am witness to the qabuliats Exhibits I and II'. Later on, in cross-ex-animation he qualified the statement to some extent: 'I was not a writing witness in any of the qabuliats.' The qabuliats had been executed on the 15th March and 3rd April, 1898, and had been registered on the 15th April of that year. Certified copies from the Registration office were produced, and these established conclusively that the name of the appellant was not on the original documents as an attesting witness before their registration, in ...
Jadoo Nath Chatterjee Vs. Aswini Kumar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1910
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.974
1. We are invited in this appeal to set aside a sale held on the 21st August 1906, in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained on the 9th March 1897. In 1901, there was an execution against the same property and on the 30th January of that year, it was sold for Rs. 26,100. It passed into the hands of a person, named Lalit Kumar Bose, who is alleged to have been a benamidar of Rai Charan Guha. Immediately after that sale, an application was made to set it aside on the ground of material irregularity and substantial injury. The Court held on that occasion that the property had been under-sold and that the judgment-debtors had been prejudiced by material irregularity in publishing the sale. The sale was, consequently, set aside. In the present execution proceedings, the property was sold for Rs. 8,000 and purchased by three persons, Aswini Kumar Banerjee, Lalit Chander Banerjee and Rai Charan Sarkar; of these, the first two are said to be servants of the decree-holders and the t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »