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.
Dwarka Nath Sen and ors. Vs. Mohima Charan Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.121
Chatterjee, J.1. The suit was to recover khas possession of plots Nos. 1, 2, 5 and the southern half of plot No. 4 and for confirmation of possession of plot No. 3 and the northern half of plot No. 4.2. The plaintiffs claimed these lands both in jote and jamai right. The jamai right, the plaintiffs alleged, had been purchased by them at a sale held in execution of a rent decree against the recorded tenant. Defendant No. 1 alone appeared in the suit and impeached the decree and the sale as fraudulent and collusive. He claimed to have purchased plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as per boundaries given at the foot of his written statement from one Mela Ram who had not been made a party to the rent suit. The other defendants did not appear and contest the suit.3. The Court of first instance held that the vendor of defendant No. 1 was not bound by the decree and the sale and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to eject defendant No. 1 from plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and declared their jote right to these ...
Jatra Mohan Bysack and ors. Vs. Akhil Chandra Bysack
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.261
1. No one appears to show cause against this Rule.2. From the explanation of the appellate Court and on the face of its judgment, it is clear that there has been no proper hearing of the appeal. The Magistrate says: 'The full statement of facts and the finding were not given in the appellate Court's judgment as they were set out in full in the lower Court's judgment with which I do, not see any reason to disagree except as regards the amount of punishment.' But we would point out to the learned Magistrate that the first duty of a Court of appeal is to find whether the conviction had by the lower Court against each of the accused persons is sustainable. A general agreement with the lower Court cannot be sufficient to uphold the conviction of each particular individual; each of them is entitled to a finding on the facts that he did or did not take part in the alleged offence, and where there is no such finding, there must be a re-hearing of the appeal.3. The case will be remanded to the ...
Baikunta Nath Chuckerbutty and ors. Vs. Hara Lal Pal Chowdhury and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.116
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first three defendants in a suit commenced against them by the plaintiffs-respondents for recovery of money due under a promissory-note executed on the 7th July 1904. The plaintiffs and the fourth defendant were partners of a firm, styled Ram Chandra Guru Churn Pal Chowdhry. The promissory note was executed in favour of the first plaintiff who was the managing member; but it is common ground that in this matter he acted on behalf of the firm and that the sum advanced was part of the assets of the partnership business. The debtors defendants admitted the transaction. Their defence to the claim in substance was that on the 10th March 1907, they paid Rs. 1,800 to the fourth defendant, and that the debt was satisfied to that extent. The Subordinate Judge held that the debtors in collusion with the fourth defendant had got up this unfounded plea, and that consequently there was, no valid defence to the claim. Upon appeal, the learned District Judge held...
Purna Chandra Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Kinkar Manjhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.133
Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiffs' mokarari right to certain trees standing on the bank of a bund and for recovery of possession thereof and also for the value of the branches wrongfully appropriated by the defendants.2. The plaintiffs alleged that the trees belonged to the idol, Keshab Rai Jiu, together with the bund on which they stood. The plaintiffs obtained in Kartik 1310 a mokarari settlement of the bund and of the trees standing thereon from the present shebait of the idol. The defendants on the Strength of a purchase from the previous shebait cut down and appropriated some of the branches of the trees.3. The defendants' purchase was attached on the ground that it was without, consideration, and that it was not binding upon the present shebait. The defence, inter alia, was that the trees had been sold by the previous shebait for consideration and for the benefit of the idol and that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitatio...
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. British India Steam Naviga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.183
1. This is an application, for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decision of this Court is the case of British India Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India in Council 8 Ind. Cas. 107 : 15 C.W.N. 87 : 12 C.L.J. 505. In that case, an interlocutory order of the Land Acquisition Judge was challenged on behalf of both the claimants and the Secretary of State. On behalf of the claimants, it was contended, first, chat the Land Acquisition Judge had no jurisdiction to review, at the instance of the Secretary of State, the award of the Collector in so far as it was not challenged by the claimants, to re-examine items not controverted by them, and to set aside the award partially on the ground that it was illegal and void, and, secondly, that the Land Acquisition Judge had no jurisdiction to make an order for discovery, and, at any rate, if he had such jurisdiction, fie had exercised it improperly in the case before him. On behalf of the Secretary of State, it ...
Sasirama Kumari Vs. Meherban Khan and 0rs.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.918
1. We are invited in this rule to set aside an order by which an objection to an execution sale has been summarily dismissed on the ground that the petitioner before us has no locus standi in the matter. The circumstances, under which the order in question has been made, are not the subject of controversy, and may be briefly narrated. Raja Padmananda Singh, and his son Kumar Chandrananda Singh were declared to be equally entitled to a seven-anna share of the Baneli Raj estate as the result of a suit in the Court of the District Judge of Bhagulpore which was terminated by a consent decree on the 14th August, 1.903. On the 26th September, 1905, pursuant to an agreement of an earlier date alleged to have been made on the 15th July, 1905, the Raja conveyed his moiety in the aforesaid seven-anna share to his son by a registered deed of conveyance. The result of the transaction was, that Kumar Chandrananda became entitled to hold the entire seven-anna share in his own right. Meanwhile, on th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›