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.
Ashutosh Chatterjee Vs. Sudhinadra Chandra Moulik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.597
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an application which has for its substantial purpose the setting aside of a sale in execution which was effected under the following circumstances. On the 10th of July 1911, the property was put up for sale in execution, and there was a bid of Rs. 9,000 by the petitioner. At the time when he made that bid, it was the highest, and the result was that the Nazir who was conducting the sale treated him as the highest bidder. Immediately afterwards, those interested in the sale discovered what had been done. They at once raised an objection, because it was believed that there were others who were willing to bid no less than Rs. 15,000 for the property. Accordingly, the Judge was approached, with the result that on the very same day he directed that the sale should proceed and that the next bid above Rs. 9,000 should be Rs. 15,000. I am not much concerned with the actual form of his order. Substantially, he considered that there ought to be a continuation of ...
Rashmohini Dasi, Executrix to the Estate of Late Tara Chand Biswas Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.604
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether a decree for arrears of rent obtained by respondent against the appellants can be executed under the special procedure prescribed in the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The record of the rent suit was sent for and is before this Court. It appears from the plaint that there are two durpatni tenures, one in respect of the 13 annas share of the patni and the other in respect of the 3-annas share. Separate rents and instalments are fixed in respect of each durpatni which, moreover, are not proportionate to each other and the tenures are referred to in the plaint itself as both the jamas' The mere fact that the total rents of the two tenures are claimed in one suit cannot have the effect of consolidating the two tenures into one.3. It is true the decree refers to a durpatni but the question whether there were two separete tenures or there was only one, becomes material only when the decree is sought to be executed under the special provisions of the Be...
Beni Madhab Roy Vs. Bisseswar Bharati
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.436
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made by the Court of appeal below on the ground that the appeal to that Court was incompetent, and the order in question was consequently made without jurisdiction.2. It appears that the petitioner obtained a decree for rent on the 30th November 1908. The claim was under Rs. 50 in value and the Munsif who tried the suit was invested with final jurisdiction under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. An appeal was preferred against that decree notwithstanding these circumstances, and was apparently heard without objection. The appeal' was allowed in part and the decree of primary Court was varied in favour of the appellant on the 22nd February 1910. In execution of that decree, the holding was sold on the 20th June following and was purchased by the decree-holder. On the 16th July 1910, the judgment-debtor brought into Court a sum adequate in his estimation for the reversal of the sale under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Obj...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›