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.
Gopal Chandra Karmokar Vs. Basir Gazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.17
Chatterjee, J.1. The first point raised in this appeal is that the case of Hridoy Nath Das Choudhry v. Krishna Prosad Sircar 34 C. 298 : 6 C.L.J. 153 : 11 C.W.N. 497, has not been correctly decided and that the lower appellate Court was wrong in following the same.2. I think I am bound by that judgment. The three jamas in this case having been sold at one sale in execution of one decree recoverable for the same, the special incidents of a sale under the Bengal Tenancy Act have, under the above ruling, no bearing upon this case.3. The next point that is pressed upon me is that, supposing that the above ruling has been correctly decided, the tenures were sold by the Court expressly with the right to avoid all incumbrances and that the sale certificate of the purchaser gave him that right; that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff must be considered to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of any defect in the procedure leading to the sale, and that, therefore, whether the purchase w...
Sadek Sardar and ors. Vs. Kali Prasanna Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.48
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor against an order refusing to set aside an execution sale. In the Court of first instance, the validity of the sale was substantially challenged on two grounds; first, that the sale had been brought about by fraud and also vitiated by material irregularity; and, secondly, that the holding was non-transferable, and consequently could not be sold in execution of the decree obtained by the respondent. The Court of first instance decided both these points in favour of the judgment-debtors and set aside the sale. Upon appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has reversed that order on the ground that the sale was not brought about by fraud, and, as fraud has not been established, the application was barred by limitation. His view apparently is that as the sale took place on the 21st March 1906 and as the application to set aside the sale was not presented till the 7th August 1907, the application is barred by limitation. In this view, he has...
Misri Chowdhry Vs. the Hon'ble Sir Maharaja Rameshwar Singh Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.71
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that a certain land was the millik lakheraj of the plaintiff. It appears that the final publication of the record-of-rights was made on the 24th September 1905 and that the Darbhanga Raj filed a number of cases under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair rents on the 24th November 1905. The plaintiff alleges that he purchased this land from one Musammat Ratibatti in January 1906, and he filed his plaint claiming this land as his millik lakheraj on the 31st March 1906. On the 17th May 1906, he filed a written statement before the Settlement Officer in which for the first time he took the point, which ought properly to have formed the basis of a salt under Section 106, that this land was his millik lakheraj and in the judgment of the Settlement Officer in the Section 105 case, which was delivered on the 30th August 1906, that officer directed that the record of September 1905 should be corrected and this land shou...
MeseruddIn Mollah Vs. Mochai Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.213
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor against an order by which execution has been allowed to proceed on the basis of a decree obtained by the respondent. The learned Judge in the Court of appeal below has declined to consider the objection of limitation which was successfully raised by the judgment-debtor in the Court of first instance, on the ground that upon the principle of the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Mungul Pershad Dichit v. Grija Kant Lahiri 8 C. 51 : 11 C.L.R. 113 : 8 I.A. 123, it was not open to the judgment-debtor to urge that objection at the stage in which he actually took it. It appears that on the 10th June 1903 the decree-holder presented the application out of which the present proceedings arise. As the application was defective in form, the decree-holder was directed by the Court to amend it and to present it within a specified time. This order does not appear to have been* strictly carried out; that, however, is immaterial for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›