Kolkata Court November 1911 Judgments
Menajuddi Biswas Vs. Toam Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal881
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The question of law which calls for decision in this appeal is, whether a transferee from the execution-purchaser is a necessary party to a proceeding for reversal of the execution sale, when such proceeding is commenced after the transfer has been effected.2. The circumstances under which the question arises & are not disputed. The plaintiff appellant claims to be the tenant of a holding which was sold for arrears of rent by the landlord on the 16th July 1906. The landlord himself became the purchaser, and the sale was confirmed on the 27th August following. He sublet the land to the defendant on the 2nd May 1907. The plaintiff whose interest, if any, had been extinguished by the execution sale subsequently applied for reversal of the sale, and on the 9th May 1908 an order was made by which the sale was cancelled. The order was made by consent of the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor; but the Court added that grounds had been made out for reversal of ...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Bihari Das Bairagi Vs. Atul Krishna Das Bairagi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.328a
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to, for recovery of possession and for partition of, property claimed by him as the property of his father inherited equally by himself along with his brothers, the two defendants. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was the legitimate son of their father. The Cardinal point in the case, therefore, was, whether or not the legitimacy of the plaintiff had been established. Upon this question, the Courts below have arrived at divergent decisions. The primary Court came to the conclusion that the legitimacy of the plaintiff was established while the learned District Judge was of opinion it had not been proved to his satisfaction.2. On behalf of the plaintiff, it has been contended before us that the decision of the District Judge is open to attack inasmuch as he has not considered the question from the right point of view and has overlooked well-established principles of law applicable to cases of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Menajuddi Biswas Vs. Toam Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.176
1. The question of law which calls for decision in this appeal is, whether a transferee from the execution-purchaser is a necessary party to a proceeding for reversal of the execution sale, when such proceeding is commenced after the transfer has been effected.2. The circumstances under which the question arises are not disputed. The plaintiff-appellant claims to be the tenant of a holding which was sold for arrears of rent by the landlord on the 16th July 1905. The landlord himself became the purchaser and the gale was confirmed on the 27th August following. He sub-let the land to the defendant' on the 2nd May 1907. The plaintiff, whose interest, if any, had been extinguished by the execution-sale, subsequently applied for reversal of the sale and on the 9th May 1908, an order was made by which the sale was cancelled. The order was made by consent of the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor; but the Court added that grounds had been made out for reversal of the sale under Section 311...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Sahi Vs. Protap Udoy Nath Sahi Deo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal241
Stephen, J.1. This matter comes before as on appeal and also on a Rule. The appeal was from a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur sitting on appeal from an order under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent that no second appeal lies in this case, and this contention, we think, must succeed. Sub-section (2) of Section 87 of the Act enacts that an appeal shall lie in the prescribed manner, and to the prescribed officer, from decisions passed under Sub-section (1). By an order of the Local Government which has power to act in this matter, the prescribed officer is the Judicial Commissioner, and it is argued that an appeal lying to him from a, decision of a Revenue Officer there can be no second appeal. It is admitted that the provisions of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code must be excluded either expressly or by implication. There is no express exclusion in this Act; but we think, on looking at the frame-work...
Tag this Judgment!Florence Amelia Thompson Vs. George S. Thompson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal395
Fletcher, J.1. These are two cross-petitions for divorce, which by the consent of the parties were heard together.2. The first petition presented by the wife, Florence Amelia Thompson, against her husband, George Sprott Thompson, claims a divorce on the ground of incestuous adultery by the husband. In answer to that petition, the husband denies the incestuous adultery, and charges his wife with adultery (the same acts which form the subject of the second petition), and the answer to the husband's petition is a denial by the wife, and the acts of which she complains in her own petition. Therefore the facts in the two petitions are the same, the position only being reversed; the husband being in the one case respondent and in the other case petitioner. The co-respondent to the husband's petition is Hugh Doherty, who is in business in Calcutta.3. It appears from the petition and the evidence that the husband and wife were married on the 31st of October 1901 at the Congregational Chapel at...
Tag this Judgment!Jagar Nath Prosad Singh Vs. Ramavatar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.39
1. This appeal is directed against an order granting an application for review of judgment. The Subordinate Judge heard an appeal ex parte and decreed it on the 13th January 1909. On the 5th April 1909, the respondent, who was absent at the original hearing, applied for review of judgment. The application was granted on the 2nd June, the original judgment was discharged and the appeal ordered to be re-heard. This appeal is directed against that order and in support of it, it has been argued that the review has been granted on insufficient grounds.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent to the competency of the appeal as it is not based on any of the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 7 of the Code of 1908. In answer to this contention, the learned Vakil for the appellant has argued that an unrestricted right of appeal is conferred by Order XLIII, Rule (1) Clause (w) of the Code, which provides for an appeal against an order under Rule 4 of Order XLI granting an ...
Tag this Judgment!Ujal Singh Vs. Debya Singh Sardar and the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.184
1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration that he was the maintenance grant holder of a certain mauzah in perpetuity on payment of a jama of Rs. 15 per year. His grievance was that he had been entered in the Settlement Record as a ticcadar of a village with a protected status at an annual jama of Rs. 220. In his original plaint, he specifically asked that the Settlement, papers might be amended and he might have a declaration in the sense in which he wished. In an additional plaint he prayed that the request for amending the Settlement papers might be excluded from the prayer. In the result he obtained from the first Court an order--a declaration--in the sense in which he wished and an order that the entry in the Settlement Record should be cancelled.2. This decision was upheld on appeal. He did not take the precaution of giving notice to Government of his suit which it was his duty to do under Section 83, Central Provinces Land Revenue Act. The result was that Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Raghubir Sahi Vs. Maharajah Sri Protap Udoy Nath Sahi Deo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.193
Stephen, J.S.A. No. 2485 of 19111. This matter comes before us on appeal and also on a Rule. The appeal was from a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur sitting on appeal from an order under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent that no second appeal lies in this case, and this contention, we think, must succeed. Sub-section (2) of Section 87 of the Act enacts that an appeal shall lie in the prescribed manner and to the prescribed officer from decisions passed under Sub-section (1). By an order of the Local Government, which has power to act in this matter, the prescribed officer is the Judicial Commissioner, and it is argued that an appeal lying to him from a decision of a Revenue officer there can be no second appeal. It is admitted that the provisions of Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, must be excluded either expressly or by implication. There is no express exclusion in this Act, but we think, on looking at ...
Tag this Judgment!Somaruddi Mollah and anr. Vs. the Port Canning and Land Improvemnet Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.481
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession. The plaintiffs rest their claim to possession on a mourasi mokarari lease of the 2nd October 1901. By that lease the defendant Company leased to Somaruddi Mollah '1601 one thousand six hundred and one standard bighas more or less of waste land in the Sunderbund Lot No. 130 belonging to the Company and known as Ram Chandra Khal.... ' the said piece or parcel of land being designated Somaruddi's chak and bounded as follows: 'West by Simultala khal belonging to the Company.' The other boundaries are given in the document, but we have no immediate concern with them.2. By Clause 12 of the lease it is provided, 'that after the Bengali year 1307 the Company as well as the lessee shall have power to cause a survey of the land contained within the boundaries aforesaid, and if the quantity of land is found to be more than 1601 bighas the lessee shall be bound to pay for the excess land at the rate of 12 annas p...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pal Singh Vs. Nandlal Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.603
1. This is an appeal from an order made by the lower Court on an application in an execution-case. The only point we have to consider is whether the execution proceedings were barred by limitation. An application for execution in respect of a certain debt was made on the 9fch September 1905. The next application that was made was on the 27th April 1909. The question is whether this second application was barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act. The point before us is whether an application of insolvency which was made on the 14th May 1909 contained such an acknowledgment of the liability as to bring the case under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The judgment-debtor filed a petition of insolvency in which he set out, in compliance with the statute, a list of his debts. The debt which forms the subject-matter of the execution proceedings was mentioned in that petition. Under the last part of explanation (1) to Section 19 it is not necessary that the acknowledgment under the Sect...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »