Kolkata Court February 1911 Judgments
Krishna Prosad Vs. Udit NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.621
1. The defendant in this case is a Ward of Court and the only question that arises in the appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest after the submission of his claim under Section 10 A of the Court of Wards Act of 1879.2. It was admitted in the first Appellate Court that the claim had not been filed within six months of the date of publication of the notice prescribed by that section and on that admission the learned District Judge refused interest after the expiration of six months from the publication of the notice.3. It appears, however, that although the notice was published in the Gazette on the 12th June, 1907, it was not published in the Judge's office until the 18th November, 1907. Under Section 64 A of the Act the notice must be published both in the Gazette and the Judge's office as well as in several other ways; and the publication cannot be regarded as complete until the notice has been published in all the different ways required by the section. The claim was...
Tag this Judgment!Tripura Charan Bannerjee Vs. Harimati Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal493
Stephen, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues for a declaration that he is entitled to a one-sixth share of certain immoveable property in Calcutta and for partition of the property. He claims as purchaser from one Nagendra Nath the son and one of the six children of Sowdamini Dassi. The defendants-are the other children of Sowdamini, one, a married woman being adult and the remaining four being infants. The guardian-ad-litem of the infants leaves the matter in the hands of the Court. The adult defendant pleads that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, that Sowdamini was a public woman of the town, that Nagendra was born while she was living as a prostitute and was not entitled to inherit anything from her. She also pleads that Sowdamini held the property in question as her benamidar, but this point has 'been given up.2. The facts in the case are very simple, and there is really no dispute as to them, though I -cannot say that admissions have been made as to any of them. T...
Tag this Judgment!Tripura Charan Banerjee Vs. Hari Mati Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.657
Stephen, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues for a declaration that he is entitled to a one sixth share of certain immoveable property in Calcutta and for partition of the property. He claims as purchaser from one Nogendra Nath, the son and one of the six children of Sowdamini Dasi. The defendants are the other children of Sowdamini, one, a married woman being adult and the remaining four being infants. The guardian ad litem of the infants leaves the matter in the hands of the Court. The adult defendant pleads that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action; that Sowdamini was a public woman of the town; that Nogendra was born while she was living as a prostitute and was not entitled to inherit any thing from her. She also pleads that Sowdamini held the property in question as her benamidar, but this point has been given up.2. The facts in the case are very simple, and there is really no dispute as to them, though I cannot say that admissions have been made as to any of them. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Ali and ors. Vs. Roshan Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.619
Coxe, J.1. This was a suit for recovery of khas possession of certain land which originally formed the holding of one Amjad Ali. This holding, which was not transferable, had nevertheless been sold to the first defendant. The plaintiffs-landlords brought a suit for rent, obtained a decree, and, in execution sold the holding. Thereafter, the first defendant deposited the purchase-money and the sale was set asides Subsequently, the plaintiffs brought this suit on the ground that, the holding not being transferable, they were entitled to khas possession. The evidence appears to be somewhat meagre and the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge on the questions of fact arising in the case are by no means so full as might be desired. In the circumstances, I assume that he accepts the findings of fact arrived at by the Munsif which are sufficient for the purpose of this case.2. It is admitted by both sides before me that the deposit purported to be made by the first defendant under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Chandra Sarma Chowdhry Vs. Radha Nath Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.623a
Coxe, J.1. The plaintiff in these suits obtained a money-decree against Rama Nath, the defendant No. 5. He attached his homestead land. The other defendants put in claims as purchasers of the interest of Rama Nath which were allowed. Accordingly these suits were brought by the plaintiff to establish that the homestead was Ram Nath's property.2. The suits were decreed by the Munsif. But on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the purchases of the defendants were made in good faith for consideration. Accordingly he dismissed the suits.3. The learned Pleader for the appellant has criticised the following passage in the learned Subordinate Judge's judgment--' No doubt the value fixed for the homestead five hears at Rs. 250 only is less than the ordinary market-price of it. But considering that the purchasers allowed Rama Nath to dwell in the homestead it appears clear that the purchasers knew it fully well in their purchasing that they would be able to possess the homestead land ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohunt Ram Sundar Das Vs. Nathuni Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1034
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court below has refused execution of a mortgage decree made in favour of the appellant on the 22nd December 1905. It appears that the respondent executed a mortgage in favour of the appellant on the 27th. November 1900, in respect of specified shares in certain properties. The appellant subsequently, sued to enforce the security, and obtained the decree now under execution. Thereupon, on the 11th March 1907, one Berhamdeo Narain commenced an action for declaration that the properties covered by the mortgage belonged to a joint Mitakshara family of which he himself and the mortgagor were members, and that consequently the mortgagor had no authority to execute the mortgage in respect of any defined share of the property. He, therefore, prayed that the mortgage and the decree based thereon might be declared void and inoperative and asked for a permanent injunction to restrain execution thereof. The Court of first instance found that...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlanand Singh and anr. Vs. Prem Lal Ganesh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.651
Woodroffe, J.1. In this case the Court of first instance held that there was a bar by res judicata, under Section 13, Civil Procedure Code, and also a bar under Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to the present suit.2. On appeal to the District Judge the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court. It is true that in coming to that conclusion the learned District Judge referred to a decision reported in Jogendra Nath Roy v. Krishna Promoda Dasi 12 C.W.N. 1032 : 8 C.L.J. 322, which does not appear to have any relevancy to the facts of the present case, because it appears from that decision that no proceedings had been taken under the provisions of Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. As a matter of fact, however, in the present case proceedings were taken under that section; and on the application of the defendant, to which, the plaintiffs gave their consent, an order was made recording the whole khewat as istimrari.3. The plaintiffs now...
Tag this Judgment!Fazar Pramanik Vs. Urman Bibee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.585
Coxe, J.1. The plaintiff in this case brought a suit in 1896 for recovery of possession of a certain share in a jote which had belonged to one Dil Mahomed on the ground that she had purchased the share from certain heirs of Dil Mahomed. The present defendant-appellant was the second defendant in that suit. It is not clear from the plaint itself in what capacity he was made a defendant. But the Court of first instance in the present proceeding holds that it was in consequence of his having purchased a part of the land from brother of Dil Mahomed. The Munsif says--' In the suit of 1896, it will be seen, Fazar was a party. But that is because it is urged he was in possession of one plot which he had purchased from Nazir (brother of Dil Mahomed) so far back as 1892. Plaintiffs case is that save and except that plot, Fazar was not in possession of any other plot of the jote previous to the dispossession which is the basis of this suit.' The suit of 1896, was decreed in the plaintiffs' favou...
Tag this Judgment!ishan Chandra Bhutt Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal488
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the appeal should not be reheard on the ground that a mukhtear has a right to appear for the defence of an accused person in any mofussil Court.2. The issue of this Rule appears to have raised a general question between vakils and pleaders and mukhtears as to the right of the latter to appear in criminal cases. It was never intended that such a question should be raised, and the question is obviously one which has been disposed of by the terms of the law and by the High Court Rules. The law is contained in Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 4, Clause (r) of the same Code. Every person accused before any Criminal Court may of right be defended by a pleader, and 'pleader' in this connection includes any mukhtear or other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding. 3. This particular practitioner has a 15-rupee license entitling h...
Tag this Judgment!ishan Chandra Bhat Vs. Emperor, on the Prosecution of Prosonna Kumar D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.664
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the appeal should not be re-heard on the ground that a Mukhtear has a right to appear for the defence of an accused person in any Mofussil Court.2. The issue of this Rule appears to have raised a general question between Vakils and Pleaders and Mukhtears as to the right of the latter to appear in criminal cases. It was never intended that such a question should be raised and the question is obviously one which has been disposed of by the terms of the law and by the High Court Rules. The law is contained in Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 4, Clause (r) of the same Code. Every person accused before any Criminal Court may of right be defended by a Pleader; and Pleader in this connection includes any Mukhtear or other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding.3. This particular practitioner has a 15-Rupee license entitling him to practise as a Mukhtear in all ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »