Kolkata Court January 1911 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.
Chhatardhari Lal Vs. Babu Biranchi Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.248
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage. The mortgagors defendants did not appear. The defendant No. 5, who had purchased one of the properties mortgaged (property No. 3) at a sale held in execution of a rent decree, filed his written statement on the 10th August 1908, in which he pleaded inter alia that the property purchased by him could not be made liable under the plaintiff's mortgage and stated that he came to know of the mortgage only when he received summons in the present suit and at once filed a petition under Section 167, Bengal Tenancy Act, to the Collector for annulling the incumbrance, and that the 24th August, 1908, had been fixed for the disposal thereof.2. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiff's mortgage could not bind the property purchased by the defendant No. 5 and dismissed the suit as against him and passed the usual mortgage decree against the other defendants with respect to the remaining properties.3. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the le...
Jinnat Ali Vs. Fateh Ali Mobbar Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.219
1. A sum of Rs. 1,587-15 was recovered from the plaintiffs as being the jotedars of a certain jote in the Noabad Mahal of the District of Chittagong. The money was realised in execution of a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act, It represented the rents of the years 1904-1907. But the title of the principal defendant to an eight annas share in the jote having been declared, in Title Suit No. 45 of 1906, the plaintiffs sued him for a moiety of the sum recovered from him by certificate process. The first Court declined to allow contribution. The lower appellate Court has reversed that decision.2. The point for determination in this second appeal is whether a person in wrongful possession of property can bring a suit for contribution against the person really entitled? The learned Vakil for the defendant-appellant argues that the certificate was not directed against his client, who derived no benefit from the plaintiff's payment of the sum mentioned therein. The argument invo...
Jumna Dass Vs. Harcharan Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal405
Stephen, J.1. The petitioner in this matter is a commission agent who bought certain goods on behalf of the defendant. His case is that the defendant refused to reimburse him for the expenses he had incurred and that events occurred which justified him in reselling the goods on behalf of the defendant at a less price than he had paid for them. Before the re-sale the defendant paid him Rs. 600 as a deposit in respect of the expenses he had incurred on behalf of the defendant. He now sues the defendant for the loss incurred on the re-sale of the goods allowing for the Rs. 600 he has received. The defendant brought a suit at Ludhiana for a return of Rs. 600 before the institution of the present suit. The plaintiff has obtained a rule on the defendant calling on him to show cause why he should not be restrained from proceeding with his suit in Ludhiana, and the two suits are so far concerned with the same subject matter, that were the Ludhiana suit brought in a Court subordinate to this Co...
Mahadeo Lal Vs. Dinkar Prasad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.194
1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Durbhanga allowing an objection which had been preferred by Darson Grope and Babu Anuplal, two of the present respondents, to the sale of a share in Mongah Kuar Ranjit, pergannah Chakmani, belonging to Babu. Dinkar Prasad and others (judgment-debtors respondents) in execution of a money-decree which had been obtained against those judgment-debtors by the transferor of Mohadeo Lal, the present appellant.2. It appears that Mahadeo Lal is the transferee of a money-decree which had been obtained against Dinkar Prasad and others and that he, on the 29th May 1906, attached the property now in question in the execution of hat decree.3. On the 17th May 1908, a mortgage-decree was passed against the same judgment-debtors in favour of Nund Lal Singh. In execution of that decree, the property in question in this appeal was attached and, on the 17th June 1908, was sold by auction and purchased by petitioner No. 2, Anuplal, in t...
Bechu Ram Vs. Chairman of Chapra Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.218
1. This appeal involves a question under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, with, reference to the levy of latrine tax.2. The plaintiff's holding No. 173 has been assessed with Rs. 41-4-0 on the annual value of that holding including the upper storey, which is his dwelling house, and the eight shops in the verandah of the ground floor of which none are occupied by the plaintiff himself. His complaint is that the latrine tax is payable in respect of the dwelling house only.3. It has been found that none of the shopkeepers pay latrine tax within the Municipality in question for their separate dwelling houses. The plaintiff's dwelling house has a privy attached to it.4. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit. The Munsif remarked incidentally, that no scale had been adopted for the fixation of latrine fees, 'but one consolidated rate has been fixed for the latrine tax on the valuation of the holding.' This point, however, had not been urged in the first Court, and the lower appellate C...
Chandra Kumar Singh Roy Vs. Kali Prosad Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.223
Carnduff, J.1. The facts of this case may be thus briefly stated: One Surja Kumar Singh and the appellant together held the whole of Mouzah Kastagura on mokarari, in' payment of Rs. 470 per annum to the superior landlord. The share of rent for which each was responsible was, therefore, Rs. 235. On the 7th August 1882, Surja created a subordinate mokarari of his one-half share by leasing it to the appellant for Rs. 560 a year, exclusive of the rent due to the superior landlord. In other words, the appellant undertook to pay Surja annually a fixed sum of Rs. 560 clear, further expressly undertaking; to discharge Surja's share of the rent due to the superior landlord. The superior landlord has recently--in 1900--had the rent of the entire mouzah raised by suit from Rs. 470 to Rs. 1,175; and the appellant's case was, and is, that, as he has now to pay the superior landlord for Surja's share Rs. 587 instead of Rs. 235, he should be called on to pay, in respect of the subordinate lease Rs. 5...
In Re: Bajrangi Shahai, a Mukhtia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.225
Woodroffe, J.1. The first portion of this Rule requires the District Magistrate to show cause why the order of suspension made by him under the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879) should not be set aside on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction. There are two chief defects in the proceeding under that Act. In the first place, the Mukhtiar was not called upon to show cause, as required by Section 40 of the Act, Which, it has been held, governs the provisions of Section 14, which give to a Judge power of suspension pending the investigation and orders of the High Court; and, secondly, in the present case there was no report to the High Court in terms of Section 14. It is only after such report that power is given to suspend; and a legal practitioner can only be suspended under paragraph 5 after he has been heard in defence under Section 40 and pending the investigation and the orders of the High Court. The investigation which is there referred to is an investigation by t...
Kumud Nath Roy Chowdhury Vs. Jotindra Nath Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal394
Mookerjee and Teunon, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against an order of refusal of the Court below to set aside ail ex parte decree. On the 27th September, 1907, the present respondent, who had taken an assignment of a mortgage bond, commenced an action to enforce the security against the mortgagors, who formed a family of five brothers. Of these, the first three entered appearance in the suit and disputed the claim of the plaintiff. There was no appearance on behalf of the other two defendants. On the 24th July, 1908, a decree upon contest was made against the first three defendants, and an ex parte decree against the other two defendants. On the 26th June, 1909, two applications were made, one by each of these defendants to set aside the ex parte decree. On the 20th April, 1910, the Subordinate Judge dismissed both the applications. He held that the summons was not duly served, but that as the applicants knew about the suit, when it was actively defended by their eldest brother, the ...
Rajiba Gauntia Vs. Baji Kahar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.113
Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. Plaintiff alleged that his father was the protected ticcadar and landlord of the village in which the lands in dispute are situate, that the defendants father held the lands which are Bhogra lands under the plaintiff's father as a sub-tenant that the defendants have no right to continue in possession of the lands against the plaintiff's will and prayed for recovery of khas possession of the lands.2. The defence was that long before this plaintiff's father became ticcadar of the village, the lands were leased in perpetuity to the defendants' ancestors by the then Gauntias (proprietors) of the village and they had at great cost and labour broken up the lands and made costly improvements.3. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit.4. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court and it has been contended on his behalf that no permanent right can be acquired by a tenant in Bhogra lands which are sir lands as defined in Sectio...
Nathu Khan Vs. Musammat Sewak Koeri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.161
Woodroffe, J.1. As regard the two points which have been raised in this appeal. I am of opinion that the lower appellate Court rightly admitted the oral evidence as to which objection has been taken.2. As regards the second point, the case does not appear to me to fall within Section 65 of the Indian, Contract Act, for, having regard to the facts, it does not appear to be one in which it can be said that the agreement has been 'discovered to be void', nor is it one where the contract has 'become void'. What has been found is this, that the plaintiff sold the property in suit to the defendant No. 2 by a conveyance, in consideration of services rendered or to be rendered by the defendant in inducing one Lakhpat Nath Singh, his employer, to sell certain villages to the plaintiff, in other words, that the defendant committed fraud upon his employer. This fact was known to the parties at the time when the agreement was made.3. In my opinion, the section does not apply where the object of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »