Kolkata Court February 1911 Judgments
Shib Krishna Dawn and Co. Vs. Satish Chunder Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal522
Harington, J.1. This is a petition to extend the time within which an award may be made, and the objection taken is that the Court has no power to grant the petition because the award has already been made, and it is said that the Court cannot exercise the powers under Section 148 when the award has been made. Now the case of Raja Har Narain Singh v. Vhaudhrain Bhagivant Kuar (1891) I.L.R. 13 All. 300, decided by the Privy Council, is an authority for the proposition that the Court has not power to enlarge the time for the making of an award when the time has passed and the award has already been made. On behalf of the petitioner it is argued that Section 148 alters the law laid down in that case because it enables the Court to enlarge the time for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Code, notwithstanding that the period originally fixed has expired. I agree with the view that if the time had expired, and no award had been made, that that section does give the Court power...
Tag this Judgment!Madheshwar Singh Vs. Mohamaya Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1027
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court below has appointed a Receiver under Rule 1, Order XL of the Code of 1908 in respect of properties sold in execution of a mortgage-decree. The decree under execution was obtained so far back as the 20th March 1905. The properties covered by the decree are of considerable value and extent and a common manager has been appointed by the District Judge under the provisions of Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Payments were made from time to time by the common manager towards the satisfaction of the mortgage decree but at the time the last application for execution was made a sum in excess of Rs. 1,00,000 was due to the decree-holders. The decree-holders apprehended that the sale-proceeds might not be sufficient to satisfy the judgment-debt, and on the 2nd August 1910 they applied for the appointment of a Receiver. During the pendency of this application the properties were sold on the 17th September 1910 and were purchased ...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Chand Mahtap Vs. Satish Chandra Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.842
N. Chatterjea, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant sued the defendant-respondent for arrears of rent in respect of a mokurari for the years 1311 to 1314. He brought a previous suit for rents for the portion of the period covered by the present suit. That suit was dismissed on the 30th October 1906.2. The defence in the present case was that the previous suit having been dismissed, the present suit could not be maintained.3. The Court of first instance, holding that the previous suit was dismissed under Section 158, Civil Procedure Code, gave a decree only for the period subsequent to that covered by the previous suit and that decree has been confirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge.4. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court and it is contended on his behalf that the previous suit was only dismissed for default and as such the dismissal could not stand in the way of the present suit.5. It appears that the hearing of the previous suit was fixed for the 12th September 1906. On that dat...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Nath Sinha Vs. Nagendra Nath Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal501
Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of an action commenced by the plaintiff-respondent, for declaration of the invalidity of the election of the defendant as a Commissioner of the Manicktolla Municipality. The suit was instituted on the 8th July, 1910, after the name of the defendant had been entered in the lists as qualified to vote and also to be elected as a Commissioner. The election took place on the 23rd July, 1910, and the plaintiff thereupon asked for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from exercising his privileges as an elected Commissioner. The Court of first instance held that the defendant was qualified to vote under Clause 1 of the proviso to Section 15 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, because he had paid, during the year immediately preceding the election, Municipal rates of the aggregate amount of not less than three rupees; the Court also found that he was qualified under Clause 2 of the same proviso as he had paid income-tax during that year. In thi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz Vs. Fateh Mahomed Haji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal518
Chitty and N.R. Chatterjea, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to recover three plots of land from the defendants. The plaintiff based his title on a registered deed of gift executed by defendant No. 3 on 31st Chaitra 1299 (April 1893). By that deed defendant No. 3 gave to the plaintiff a two-anna share in a certain taluk and a four-anna share in a kaimi rayati holding. The plaintiff, who is a. nephew by marriage of defendant No. 3, was adopted and brought up by him from childhood. He was about 22 years of age at the date of the gift. The plaintiff has always lived with defendant No. 3. No question now turns on the gift of the two-anna share of the taluk, which was demarcated by the deed of gift and of which plaintiff had had separate possession until dispossessed by defendant No. 3. As to the four-anna share in the kaimi rayati, defendant No. 3, contends that plaintiff never had separate possession of that portion and that the gift is not binding upon him as being a gi...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Das Bairagi Vs. Siddhi Nath Misser and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.650
1. This was a case for recovery of certain land on the ground that it belonged to an idol named Iswar Lakhmi Narayan of which the plaintiff was a shebait. It appears that this debuttar or so-called debuttar, land was originally administered by one Radha Charan. Radha Charan had a son, Sarup, who had two sons Tiluk and Balahari. The plaintiff is the son of Tiluk. One Brindaban was the son of Balahari. The plaintiff alleges that there was a partition, or something in the nature of a partition, between his branch of the family and that of Brindabun. And as Brindabun died leaving no male issue he is entitled to recover this land.2. It does not appear to me that any point, of law arises in the case. It was held in the case of Gobinda Kumar Roy v. Debendra Kumar Roy 12 C.W.N.98, that 'properties dedicated to a family idol may be converted into secular property by the consensus of the family,' and also that 'in dealing with a question as to whether properties alleged to be debuttar are really...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz Vs. Fateh Mahomed Hazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.635
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to recover three plots of land from the defendants. The plaintiff based his title on a registered deed of gift executed by defendant No. 3 on 31st Chaitra 1299, (April 1893). By that deed defendant No. 3 gave to the plaintiff a 2-anna share in a certain taluq and a 4-anna share in a kaimi raiyati-holding. The plaintiff who is a nephew by marriage of defendant No. 3 was adopted and brought up by him from childhood. He was about 22 years of age at the date of the gift. The plaintiff has always lived with defendant No. 3. No question now turns on the gift of the 2-anna share of the taluq, which was demarcated by the deed of gift and of which plaintiff had separate possession until dispossessed by defendant No. 3. As to the 4-anna share in the kaimi raiyati defendant No. 3 contends that plaintiff never had separate possession of that portion and that the gift is not binding upon him as being a gift of mushaa. Plaintiff endeavoured to prove a ...
Tag this Judgment!H.L. Weatherall Vs. the Eastern Mortgage and Agency Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.985
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court below has appointed a Receiver in respect of properties which form the subject-matter of a mortgage-suit. The circumstances under which the order has been made are reasonably clear from the materials placed before us. On the 19th August 1895, one Aftanunnessa Khatun, on her behalf and on behalf of her infant son, executed a mortgage in favour of the Eastern Mortgage and Agency Company to secure a loan of Rs. 1,85,000. On the same day, she executed a power-of-attorney in favour of Garth and Weather-all by which they were authorised to manage the mortgaged premises entirely without the interference of the mortgagors. Subsequently, legal difficulties arose in the management of the propertied by the Attorneys and, particularly in connection with the institution of suits and the conduct of legal proceedings. The mortgagors also found it necessary to take a further loan of Rs. 60,000. The result was that on the 11th July 1900 two...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Chandra Guho and ors. Vs. Khagendra Nath Chattopadhyaya and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1001
1. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is one of some novelty and turns upon the true construction of Section 13 of the Bengal Tenancy Act The circumstances under which the question has been raised are of some complexity, but may be briefly narrated in so far as it is necessary to state them for our present purpose. The plaintiff is owner of a zemindari which bears No. 2694 on the Revenue Roll of the Collector of Backergunge. Under the zemindari is a transferable taluk known as Kamdeb Guha, which was in existence so far back as 1810, but has not been traced back to the time of the Permanent Settlement. On the 20th June 1898, the plaintiff purchased the taluk at a sale held in execution of a decree obtained by him in a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent. The sale was confirmed on the 4th April 1899, and possession delivered to the purchaser on the 29th July following. The plaintiff was, however, unable to obtain actual possession of all the lands, as the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Das Jati and anr. Vs. Panchkowri Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.615
Coxe, J.1. The appellants in this case are defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that their landlord obtained a decree for rent against them and put up their holding to sale. The plaintiff alleging himself to be a mortgagee applied to deposit the decretal amount in Court under Section 178 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants objected. The Execution Court declined to decide the question whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to make the deposit and directed that the case should be disposed of on full satisfaction. The plaintiff then brought this suit to recover the amount he had deposited from the defendants and has obtained a decree in the Courts below.2. It has been argued by the learned Pleader for the appellants that the suit was wrongly framed and that a joint decree should not have been given against all the defendants. It is pointed out on the other side that the suit was not one for contribution and that the decree is in accordance with the pleadings. But, in the view that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »