Kolkata Court February 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.
RakimuddIn Ahmed Vs. Naimullah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.623
1. This is a Rule taken out by the second defendant in a Small Cause Court suit calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge against defendant No. 1 and himself should not be set aside.2. The petition alleged certain ground which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pressed before us.3. It appears that the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover from the three defendants, who are Police Officers, a sum of Rs. 155 alleged to be the amount of a bribe, which was extorted by these Police Officers, to induce them to restrain from searching the house of Manghi, the petitioner's brother, and so putting him to shame. The Small Cause Court Judge has in a very lengthy judgment come to the conclusion that the claim was proved and has passed a decree for the amount claimed. We are now invited to set that decision aside.4. In the first place it is clear that the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to try the case inasmuch as it is...
Kali Sankar Debya Vs. Kaloo Mollah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.493
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit brought by her under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act against all her tenants (defendants Nos. 1 to 75) for settlement of fair and equitable rents. She prayed that the rent of the several tenants as recorded in their respective khatians might be enhanced on several grounds. The Assistant Settlement Officer fixed what he found to be a fair and equitable rent in each case. On appeal, the Special Judge of Pabna has fixed the rents at somewhat lower figures.2. It is objected by the defendants-respondents, that no second appeal lies to this Court, and, in our opinion, that contention is sound. Some attempt was made to argue on behalf of the plaintiff that the Courts below had not confined themselves to the fixing of a fair and equitable rent under Section 105 but had gone into matters which would properly fall under Section 106, and the case of Pirthi Chand Lal Chowdhuri v. Sheikh Basarat Ali 3 Ind. Cas. 449 : 13 C.W.N. 1140 : 37 C. 30 : ...
Nabinchandra Saha Paramanick Vs. Krishna Barana Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal458
Stephen, J.1. This suit was originally decreed by me ex parte on the defendants failing to appear when the case was called on. Subsequently the defendants proved facts that led me to suppose that I might have been misled by evidence which showed that one of the defendants was in the High Court at the time I heard the suit, and was intentionally' absenting himself from my Court; and I re-instated the case accordingly.2. The plaint in the case, as far as it is material, is as follows. On the 15th December 1908, the defendants contracted to sell and the plaintiff to buy a half share in land in Calcutta, at the rate of Rs. 650 a cottah which came to Rs. 18,581-2-4 and the plaintiff paid Rs. 501 as earnest money: the sale to be completed within a month. On the 26th January 1909, the defendants informed the plaintiff that they could not fulfil their contract as they had previously sold the share in question to one Gokul Chand Bural, but the plaintiff refused to accept this excuse. On the 5th...
NabIn Chandra Saha Pramanik Vs. Sreemutty Krishna Baroni Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.525
Stephen, J.1. This suit was originally decreed by me ex parte on the defendant failing to appear when the case was called on Subsequently, the defendant proved facts that led me to Suppose that I might have been misled by evidence which showed that one of the defendants was in the High Court at the time I heard the suit, and was intentionally absenting himself from my Court; and 1 reinstated the case accordingly.2. The plaint in the case, as far as it is material, is as follows: On the 15th December 1908, the defendants contracted to sell and the plaintiff to buy a half share in land in Calcutta at the rate of Rs. 650 a cottah which came to Rs. 18,581-2-4 and the plaintiff paid Rs. 501 as earnest money the sale to be completed within a month. On the 26th January 1909, the defendants informed the plaintiff that they could not fulfil their contract as they had previously sold the share in question to one Gokul Chand Bural but the plaintiff refused to accept this excuse. On the 5th April ...
Bidhu Mukhi Dasi Vs. Satish Chandra Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.534
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of maintenance, commenced by her, against her brother-in-law. The husband of the plaintiff pre-deceased her father-in-law and after the death of the latter his widow in the exercise of the authority conferred upon her took the defendant in adoption. The plaintiff claims to recover separate maintenance from the defendant. Her rights in this respect are regulated by the 4th paragraph of the Will of her father-in-law. That paragraph provides as follows: 'My daughter-in-law, Sreemutty Bidhu Mukhi Dasi, shall, as long as she lives, live as a member of the family, attend my two wives and obtain her maintenance and probable expenses for brata, etc., when necessary. If after the death of my first wife disagreement takes place between her (Bidhu Mukhi) and my begotted son or adopted son, and she lives in my own house as separate in mess, then she will get Rs. 100 in cash and 1/4th share of the fruits produced in my garden; b...
Brojo Nath Chuckerbutty Vs. Uday Chandra Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.487
N. Chatterjea, J.1. The lands in dispute together with some other lands belonged to two brothers Gauri Kant and Kashi Kant. Their rights were purchased by one Uma Kant who also was their brother. On the death of Uma Kant his son granted a lease of the lands to the plaintiff one of the sons of Gauri Kant. He sues for possession of a moiety of the lands alleging that he is in possession of the other moiety. The defendant No. 2 is the widow of Kashi Kant. She sold an eight-anna share of the lands to the defendant No. 1 and took a sub-lease from the latter and is residing in the huts standing on the land.2. The defence is that the lease was granted in the name of the plaintiff for the benefit of his father and his aunt the defendant No. 2, and that plaintiff's brothers not having joined with him as plaintiffs the plaintiff alone could not maintain the suit and that the suit was barred by limitation.3. The Court of first instance holding that the plaintiff was the benamdar of his father and...
Maimunnessa Khatoon Alias Khola Bibi Vs. Faizar Rahman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.507
N. Chatterjea, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant sued to recover possession of her share in certain properties inherited by her from her father and mother and which had been sold away for arrears of revenue or rent. She alleged that the defendant No. 1 who is her brother managed the whole estate on behalf of all the co-sharers, and that she was in possession jointly with him by receiving her share of the rents and profits; that after she had fallen out with defendant No. 1, the latter did not pay her share of the rents and profits nor give up her share of the properties and that in order to deprive her of her share caused the properties to be sold for arrears of revenue and himself purchased the same with his own money in the names of the defendants Nos. 10-13, but that all the properties were in his possession.2. The defendant No. 1 pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff was never in possession, that the suit was barred by limitation, that he had purchased two of the properties, and that so...
Gobind Chandra Laha and ors. Vs. Tara Pada Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.503
1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the incumbrance of the defendants was annulled under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The plaintiffs-appellants are patnidars of the mouzah in which the tank in dispute is situated and they purchased the darpatni at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent on the 22nd November, 1904. The defendants, who were sepatnidars and who claim to hold an incumbrance on the tank, applied to have the sale set aside on the 21st December 1904, which was, however, rejected on the 1st February, 1905, and sale was confirmed on the., 4th February, 1905. The purchasers obtained possession on the 22nd March 1905 and they applied under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the 10th January 1906. Notice under Section 167 was served on the 4th March, 1906, and the present suit was instituted on the 24th August 1906. Both the Courts below have held that the application under section. 167 having been made more than a year after th...
Bhona Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal408
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is a jail appeal in a gang case, under Section 401 of the Indian Penal Code which before admission was sent to us by one of the Benches constituted to try undefended appeals in Chambers, for argument on the point whether, having regard to the decision in the case of Mankura Pasi v. Queen Empress (1899) I.L.R. 27 Cale. 139, evidence of previous convictions for offences against property and for bad livelihood are admissible in gang cases. We have heard the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the Crown and have considered the reported and unreported cases. It was held by Prinsep and Hill JJ., in the case above cited that the character of the accused was not a fact in issue in the offence of belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft, and that, therefore, evidence of bad character or reputation of the accused is inadmissible for the purpose of proving the commission of that offence. The judgment is a doubtf...
Basiram Malo Vs. Kattyayani Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal448
Mookerjee and Teunon, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order by which the Court below in concurrence with the Court of first instance has overruled, without any investigation, an objection by the judgment-debtors that the property sought to be sold in execution of a decree for money obtained against them is not transferable. The learned Judge has held that an investigation of this question is barred by the omission of the judgment-debtors to urge the objection when the property in question was attached before judgment. The question is one of some novelty; but upon an examination of the provisions of the Code we feel no doubt as to the manner in which it ought to be answered. The contention of the decree-holder is to the effect that when an application is made by a plaintiff for attachment of the property of the defendant before judgment, it is the duty of the defendant to take exception to the attachment, on the ground that the property is not saleable within the meaning of Section 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »