Kolkata Court November 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.
Thompson, Florence Amelia Vs. Thompson, George S.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.886
Fletcher, J.1. These are two cross- petitions for divorce, which by the consent of the. parties were beard together.2. The first petition presented by the wife, Florence Amelia Thompson, against her husband, Gaorge 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 Chap...
Hari Mohan Dalal Vs. Lachmichand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.215
1. In disposing of this Rule, it is necessary to set out the following facts. On the 28th August 1909, the opposite party obtained a decree in the Small Cause Court for Rs. 1,204 On the 10th April 1910, the present petitioner brought a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 8,696 on an equitable mortgage effected in his favour by delivery of title deeds of five properties hypothecated as security for three loans made on bonds executed in 1907 by Kailash Chandra Das, the same defendant against whom the opposite party had previously obtained the Small Cause Court decree. On the 18th April 1910, the opposite party, in execution of the Small Cause Court decree, attached two of the properties covered by the petitioner's equitable mortgage. On the 18th May 1910, the petitioner obtained a decree for the full amount claimed on his mortgage against the defendant Kailash Chandra Das and the usual order nisi was passed in his favour. On the 14th November 1910, the opposite party brought to sale the two of ...
Narsing NaraIn Singh Vs. Ajodhya Prosad Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.118
1. This appeal is directed against a decree by which the Courts below have concurrently ordered the partial enforcement of a private arbitration award. The parties to the proceeding are related to each other, and had a dispute as to a pathway for passage from the land of the plaintiff and his brother to a village towards the north of the property of the first defendant. There were also disputes between the parties in respect of other matters to which detailed reference is not necessary for our present purpose. On the 16th July 1908, the matters in controversy which were set out in full detail in a registered instrument of submission were referred to the arbitration of a gentleman by name Dilkiswar Singh. He made his award on the 31st August 1908. On the 14th September following, the plaintiff applied under Section 525 of the Code of 1332 that the award be filed in Court. The defendants resisted the application on every conceivable ground; they questioned the validity of the submission,...
Rani Brindarani Choudhrani Vs. Annoda Mohan Ray Choudry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.328
1. The question for determination in this Rule is whether the petitioner is entitled to make a deposit under the provisions of Section 170(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioner, Rani Brindarani Choudhrani, purchased a permanent tenure of the judgment-debtors in the year 1306, that is, long before the period in respect of which the arrears of rent have now been decreed. In that view, and having regard to the authority of the case of Jotindra Mohan Tagore v. Durga Dabe 10 C.W.N. 438 the Munsif has directed the tenure to be sold and refused to consider the deposit actually made by the Rani as good and valid deposit.2. The petitioner, manifestly, is not a judgment-debtor within the intent of Section 170(3). The arrears of rent have been decreed as due from other persons against whom the landlord brought his suit. The petitioner, also, does not represent the judgment-debtors because the tenure was transferred before the decree made in the rent suit. For the same reason, the petitione...
Kaniz Jenatul Kobra Vs. Hamidunnessa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.56
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court below has refused execution of a decree for recovery of dower debt, on the ground that the properties against which the decree-holder seeks to proceed are not liable to be seized in execution of that decree. It appears that one Wahidal Huq, who died in 1905, left him surviving two widows, the appellant Kaniz Jenatul Kobra, and the respondent Hamidunnesea; he also left a daughter, Mukhduman, by a predeceased wife. The appelant sued the heirs of her husband for recovery of the dower-debt and obtained a decree against them on the 28th January 1907. When she applied for execution of this decree, objection was taken by other claimants that the decree could not be executed against properties which did not form part of the estate of her husband at the time of his death. We are now concerned with a property named Chuck Shahbanu and also other properties covered by two mokurari leases, dated the 19th March 1876, and the 4th February...
D. Weston and ors. Vs. Peary Mohan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.335
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an application to this Appellate Court under Order XLI, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the Court in its discretion to demand from the appellants, security for the costs of the appeal, or of the original suit, or of both, The only materials on which we are entitled to decide this application are the allegations contained in the petition. Those allegations are un-contradicted, and it has been stated before us by Mr. Garth very candidly that they are admitted to be correct. Now, it is stated in that petition that the respondent's costs which have been ordered to be paid amounted to a very large sum, roughly estimated, of about two lacs and fifty thousand rupees; that the appellants have no such means as to be able to pay the cost; that the appellants have no immoveable property from which the costs can be realised, and that the prosecution of the appeal will entail a very heavy expenditure on the part of the plaintiff respondent, an...
Dukhimoni Dasi Vs. Tulsi Charan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.512
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. Having regard to Section 116 of the Evidence Act the defendant cannot be permitted to deny that the plaintiff had a title to the possession of the land at a time when the license was given to enter into possession. In the circumstances a suit for use and occupation would lie. There is no question as to the amount due on that basis; it is Rs. 40 and there will be a decree for that amount with costs. The plaintiff will have the costs of the Rule which is made absolute. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur....
Lala Chet NaraIn Sahi Vs. Rampal Manjhi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.554
1. The case out of which the Rule arises was instituted so far back as the 25th June 1903. It was at one time dismissed for default; but was again revived, and after innumerable applications for adjournments, it was finally decreed ex parte on the defendant's failing to appear on the 18th May 1910. Early in July, the defendants applied under Order XLVII, Rule 1 to have the case revived on the ground that their Pleader had been prevented from appearing on the day of hearing. This application dragged on until the present year and was finally granted by the Subordinate Judge without giving any reasons for his decision.2. The case then went on appeal before the Judicial Commissioner and he held that the Subordinate Judge could not have dealt with the matter under Order XLVII, Rule 1, inasmuch as it came properly within the scope of Order IX, Rule 13, and was accordingly barred by limitation. It appears to have been argued before him that the appellants in his Court were not entitled to tak...
A.T. Bhuttacharya and Co. Vs. Cawnpore Woolen Mills Co. Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.943
1. In this case a firm at Ranchi was suing a firm at Cawnpore for failure to deliver certain goods on contract. The Munsif held that he had no jurisdiction to try the case. The Rule was granted on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment of the Court below should not be set aside and the case tried on the merits.2. It seems to be quite clear on the facts before us that the contract was to be performed by the defendants sending the goods to Ranchi, where they were to be accepted by the plaintiffs. The contract, therefore, as it stands, was to be carried out at Ranchit. This gives the Munsif jurisdiction which he should have exercised. There is also a question in this case which can only be determined by the evidence, namely, whether, a man named Green had or had not the power to make contracts on behalf of the defendant. But on this point we need not say anything. We think that the contract was to be performed by the delivery of the goods at Ranchi and, therefore, in part carri...
Hasun Molla Vs. Tasiruddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal393,15Ind.Cas.925
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J. and N.R. Chatterjea, JJ.1. The right of appeal in proceedings before the Court under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 is defined by Section 51. Therefore we have to see whether the order, of which complaint is now made, is an award or any part of an award. That has not been and could not be contended, and therefore no appeal lies. We mast accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »