Kolkata Court December 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 Misser Vs. Pralhad Ram Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.201
Carnduff, J.1. This appeal relates to a resumable under-tenure formed out of an eight-annas share of Mauza Moro in Chota Nagpur. The original under-tenure-holders had mortgaged half of it to the respondent plaintiff, and had given him an usufructuary lease thereof at a moiety of the rent due to the superior landlord, the Maharaja of Chota Nagpur. On the 18th August 1903, the appellant-defendant purchased what may, for the present, be called the whole under-tenure at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of its rent obtained by the Maharaja under the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act of 1879 (Bengal Act 1 of 1879); while the respondent-plaintiff purchased, on the 15th July 1905, the half mortgaged to him at a sale in execution of a mortgage-decree which he had secured against his mortgagors. So far, then, this was the position of affairs. From March 1903 till July 1905, the defendant was the under-tenure-holder, from whom the whole of the rent of the under-tenure...
Jotindra Mohan Ghosh Vs. Kedar Nath Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.289
Carnduff, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for the ejectment of the defendant-respondent from two parcels of land in Mouzah Sonatakari in the District of Hooghly. It is admitted here--as it apparently was also in the lower Appellate Court--that the action was bound to fail, if the case was governed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, but that it ought to have succeeded, if it was not. The only question for my decision, therefore, is as to whether both the Courts below were right in holding that Act applicable.2. The facts, in so far as they are material and have been found, are these. The respondent is himself a raiyat of the village, in which he had, and has, both a homestead and an agricultural holding. The two parcels in suit are situated near his old homestead, and he acquired them separately by purchase from the respective raiyat to whose homesteads they originally belonged. He has since been cultivating them and paying rent...
Lazarannessa Bibi Vs. Mahomed Jaffar Lashkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.336
Carnduff, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a usufructuary mortgagee for recovery of his mortgage-debt by sale of be property mortgaged. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance but on appeal it has been dismissed en two grounds, the first being that a usufructuary mortgagee cannot sue for sale, and the second that the holding mortgaged was not transferable.2. It is argued before me that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on the first point is erroneous, and I am referred to the judgment of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Kangaya Gwrukal v. Kalimuthu Annavi 27 M. 526. As regards this case all that I need say is that it is not precisely in point and is distinctly opposed to the ruling of another Full Bench of the same Court in the case of Arunachalam Chetti v. Ayyavayyam 21 M. 476. It is also opposed to the law as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Luchmeshar Singh v. Dookh Mochan Jha 24 C. 677 and it seem...
Gora Mian Vs. Abdul Majid
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal403
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Chittagong to shew cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that, on the facts proved, it ought to be held that the alleged search warrant was illegal and without jurisdiction, and resistance, if any, to the execution thereof does not amount to any offence.2. We are unable to find on the facts that the alleged search warrant was either illegal or without jurisdiction. The order of the Magistrate passing it was made with jurisdiction, and it was an order for a warrant under Section 100 for Mamuda Khatun for immediate appearance. Now that warrant was snatched away and destroyed by the accused persons, and it must, therefore, be presumed that it contained the substance of what is set out in Section 100 although admittedly it was drawn up on a form which is printed for use under Section 98. Now, under Section 100 the only kind of warrant that c...
N.C. Sircar and Sons Vs. the Baraboni Coal Concern Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.868
Chitty, J.1. This suit was filed on the 22nd November by the firm of N.C., Sircar & Sons against the Baraboni Coal Concern Ld. for (1) a declaration that the services of the plaintiff firm as Managing Agents of the defendant Company cannot be dispensed with otherwise than by a special resolution passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the Company specially convened for that purpose of which meeting not less than 12 calendar months' notice shall be given and at which persons holding not less than five-sixths of the issued capital for the time being of the Company shall be present personally or by proxy or attorney; (2) for a declaration that it is not competent to the defendant Company to dispense with the services of the plaintiff firm as Managing Agents by any resolution passed at any meeting held under or in pursuance of the notice above referred to and dated the 17th day of November 1911, and (3) for an injunction that the defendant Company be restrained by injunction from pas...
Gurameah and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.1002
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Chittagong to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that on the facts proved it ought to be held that the alleged search-warrant was illegal and without jurisdiction, and resistance, if any, to the execution thereof does not amount to any offence.2. We are unable to find on the facts that the alleged search-warrant was either illegal or without jurisdiction. The order of the Magistrate passing it was made with jurisdiction and it was an order for a warrant under Section 100 for Manuda Khatun for immediate appearance. Now, that warrant was snatched away and destroyed by the accused persons, and it must, therefore, be presumed that it contained the substance of what is set out in Section 100, although admittedly it was drawn up on a form which is printed for use under Section 98. Now, under Section 100 the only kind of warrant that can be issued is a search-warr...
Kumeda Charan Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.656
1. We are of opinion that the Rule in this case must be made absolute. The case of Khoda, Bux v. Backaya 32 C. 941 : 9 C.W.N. 1006 : 2 Cr.L.J. 764, goes as far as the law could possibly betaken in the direction of misrepresentation by conduct. In that case, there was, however, positive conduct subsequent to the receiving of the mortgage-money to show fraudulent intention, viz., the return of a bogus unstamped bond to an illiterate messenger. Here the transaction was between the principals and there was no subsequent misrepresentation, only an illegal demand. The case does not, in our opinion come within the purview of the criminal law.2. The conviction and sentence we set aside, and the fine, if paid, must be refunded....
ShukuruddIn Chowdhury Vs. Rani Hemangini Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.192
1. The decree-holder applied for the sale of a non-transferable occupancy-holding in execution of a money-decree on the allegation that the landlords had given their consent. The raiyat judgment-debtor objected and the learned Munsif found that the consent was not by all the landlords but by co-sharers to the extent of 15 1/4 annas only and made an order for the sale of that share of the holding. That order has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.2. It has been held that an occupancy-holding which is not transferable by custom can be sold with the consent of the landlord. See Ananda Das v. Ratnakar 7 C.W.N. 572. That consent, however, must be by the whole body of landlords. It is contended that the result of the order of the lower Courts would be a sale of a part of a holding and a consequent sub-division of the holding1 without the consent of the whole body of landlords. As regards the sale of a part of a holding there is some diversity of opinion and the matter has been referr...
Krishna Das Roy Vs. Land Acquisition Collector of Pabna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.470
1. This Rule arises out of certain proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.2. The petitioner alleged that he is the owner of a salt godown, for the efficient working of which the land in front is required, and that the Deputy Collector has acquired that frontal land without making a reference, as prayed, to the Civil Court under Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894.3. We are invited in this Rule to set aside the order of the Deputy Collector dated the 22nd September 1910 and his proceedings up to, and including, an order of the 24th May 1911 wherein he refused to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the case had been completed and the award confirmed.4. It appears that the 19th September 1910 was the date fixed by the Deputy Collector for claims to be put in. On that day, no claim was preferred nor was any petition for time filed. The order-sheet of the Deputy Collector is exceedingly brief and does not embody the details mentioned in his lette...
Dibakar Nag Vs. Mrittunjoy Bhattacharya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.495
1. This was a suit upon a mortgage. The lower Court found that no consideration passed, and accordingly dismissed the suit.2. In appeal it is argued that the learned Subordinate Judge omitted to consider a certain document marked Exhibit E, which was a mortgage executed about four years later and contained an admission by the defendant that he had borrowed Rs. 400 under the mortgage in suit. No reference is made to this document in either of the judgments of the Courts below. The learned Sub-Judge says: 'I think what the defendant says in his deposition is true,' In order to see what the defendant says we have looked at the deposition; and we find that this admission was never put to the defendant himself.3. There is considerable conflict of judicial opinion on the point whether a second appeal will lie when the lower Appellate Court omits to consider evidence, or misreads, or misconstrues evidence. In the present case all we think it necessary to say is that, in our opinion, the omiss...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »