Kolkata Court March 1911 Judgments
Ravaneshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Chandi Prasad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal721
Woodroffe and Carnduff, JJ.1. The first plaintiff claims an estate called taluk Chakai, originally the property of one Tikait Dharam Narain Singh. He claims to be the great great grandson of Raghubir Singh, the second son of Tikait Dharam Narain Singh. The last male holder of the property was one Tikait Garabh Narain Singh, who died while a minor and who was the great grandson of Jagarnath Singh, the eldest son of Tikait Dharam Narain Singh. A pedigree is attached to the pleadings. It is alleged that the family is governed by the Mitakshara and that the property is impartible. Tikait Fateh Narain, the father of Garabh Narain, died on the 18th April, 1863, leaving three wives. A posthumous son was born in July 1863, Garabh Narain above mentioned. On the latter's death his mother, Tikaitni Durga Kumari, succeeded as his heir and died on the 15th May, 1907. During her life time certain alienations were made in favour of the predecessor of the defendant, the Maharajah of Gidhour. The first...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Pershad Sahu Vs. Jhalo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal862
Mookerjee and Caspersz, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court below has refused an application, under Section 39 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for removal of the respondent, a Hindu lady, from the guardianship of the person and property of her infant sons on the ground that she has re-married after the death of her first husband.' The circumstances, under which the application was made are not disputed. One Mahabir Pershad died about the year 1900. He left a widow, now respondent before us, and three infant sons by her. On the 5th December, 1904, the widow obtained a certificate of guardianship in respect of the person and property of her infant sons. On the 29th May, 1909, she married a second time in sagai form; it may be mentioned at this stage, that re-marriage in this form is recognised by the caste to which she belongs. On the 28th June, 1909, the appellant before us, who is the son of the paternal uncle of the father of the infants, applied to...
Tag this Judgment!Kesho Prasad Singh Vs. Srinibash Prasad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal791
Mookerjee and Caspersz, JJ.1. We are invited in this Rule, by the plaintiff-respondent in an appeal from original decree to grant an injunction upon the defendants-appellants so as to restrain them in the use and enjoyment of the subject-matter of the litigation now in their possession. The circumstances under which the lhile was obtained are not disputed, and may be briefly narrated. The subject-matter of the litigation is known as the Dumraon Raj estate, which was in the possession of Maharani Beni Prasad Koeri up to the time of her death, on or about the 13th December, 1907. Upon her death, the Court of Wards took possession of the estate on behalf of an infant Jung Bahadur Singh, now known as Maharaj Kumar Srinibash Prasad Singh, alleged to have been adopted by the late Maharani and entitled to succeed to the Raj as such adopted son. The plaintiff thereupon commenced this litigation in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for recovery of possession of the estate, on the allegation th...
Tag this Judgment!Moulvi Abdul Khoyrat Vs. Hem Chandra Roy Choudhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.846
Coxe, J.1. This suit relates to two ferries. Originally the plaintiffs' claim covered three ferries but so far as regards those now in suit, it was withdrawn. As regards the other ferry the suit proceeded and terminated in Second Appeal No. 1134 of 1908. The decision in that case, however, is of no assistance in deciding the present appeal, as the parties in it were co-sharers, and no Question of limitation and adverse possession, such as constitute the difficulties of the present appeal, could arise.2. The case as it has been laid before me is of a somewhat curious character. The plaintiff originally claimed these ferries as appurtenant to Estate No. 5844 but this has been found against him. I must now take it that the plaintiffs' claim stands or falls by the findings of the Court below with respect to his user of the property. These findings are as follows: 'I am of opinion that the plaintiffs were in possession of the two ferries in suit not for the first time since 1279; their poss...
Tag this Judgment!Naba Krishna Pal Vs. Mohit Kali Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.840
Coxe, J.1. The lands covered by this appeal originally belonged to Rajeswari and Sambhu. They mortgaged them to the plaintiff's lessor who obtained a decree on his mortgage in 1893. In execution he put up the property to sale and purchased it himself in 1900, and subsequently leased it out to the plaintiff. In the meantime, in 1897 the defendant's lessors had purchased the property in execution of a money-decree against Rajeswari and Sambhu. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover possession of these lands.2. The Munsif held that the plaintiff's title was entitled to preference over that of the defendants and gave him a decree.3. In appeal the learned District Judge gave the plaintiff a declaration of his title, but refused the prayer for khas possession, holding that the defendants were under-tenants under the plaintiff. It is not very easy to see on what ground the learned District Judge based his decision. Apparently, it was because he considered that they took their lease in goo...
Tag this Judgment!Deb NaraIn Dutt Vs. Ram Sadhan Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.989
Coxe, J.1. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in this case executed a simple bond in favour of the plaintiff in July 1899. They appear to have deposited with him a pattah which Seems to have been a title-deed covering some of their properties. In August 1903 these defendants conveyed their land to defendant No. 5 and it was then arranged between all the defendants and the plaintiff, that defendant No. 5 should pay off the plaintiff out of the purchase-money and that the plaintiff should accept defendant. No. 5 as his debtor in the place of the first four defendants. The conveyance was registered.2. The plaintiff has now brought this suit against all the defendants on the original bond and recited in the plaint the circumstances under which he is entitled to hold defendant No. 5 responsible.3. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground of limitation. It has been held that defendants Nos.1 to 4 have no longer any liability to the plaintiff after the arrangement of August 1903...
Tag this Judgment!Makund Murari Dass and ors. Vs. Krishna Dhone Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.839
Coxe, J.1. This, was a suit for recovery of khas possession of a certain holding on the allegation that it was not transferable by custom without the landlord's consent and that the defendants, therefore, who claimed to have purchased it, had no right to it. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif who held that occupancy-holdings were transferable by custom or local usage by which, I presume, he meant to say that they were so transferable without the landlord's consent. The other issues in the case were left undecided by the Munsif. On appeal, the learned District Judge found the evidence to be insufficient to prove the custom. He accordingly remanded the case for decision of the remaining issues.2. The defendants appeal to this Court. It is argued on their behalf that the District Judge ought to have held that certain admissions made by the landlord were binding upon him and proved conclusively the custom set up by the defendants. But, clearly, these admissions were merely pieces of evid...
Tag this Judgment!Akhoy Kumar Mitter Vs. Sri NaraIn Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.663
Coxe, J.1. The lands to which these appeals relate are portions of two holdings of 235 bighas and 50 bighas respectively which were settled in 1585 with two persons named Manik Mollah and Kabiruddi Mollah. The plaintiffs are purchasers of these portions. The landlord sued the recorded tenants for rent, obtained decrees and, in execution of these decrees, attached the holdings. The plaintiffs brought these suits for declarations, that these rent-decrees were inoperative as against them and for other reliefs. The suits have been decreed by the Courts below and the defendant No. 1 appeals.2. The first ground taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiffs have no cause of action inasmuch as their rights have not yet been prejudiced. The observations of the learned District Judge that the jamas have been sold in execution of the rent decrees are said to be inaccurate as nothing has yet been done beyond attaching the property and it is said that a mere attachment is no...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Nath Roy Vs. Chandra Nath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1911
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.972
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the decree-holders against an order by which the Court of Appeal below in reversal of the order of the Court of first instance has dismissed an application for execution of a decree, made on the 20th May 1903. It appears that the decree was executed on a previous occasion when the properties of the judgment-debtors were sold. To the present execution, taken out on the 19th May 1909, objection was raised by the judgment-debtors that the decree had been adjusted out of Court, and could not be enforced any longer. The Court of first instance overruled this objection on the ground, amongst others, that the adjustment had not been certified to the executing Court within the time prescribed by law.2. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has held that no question of limitation arises, because the judgment-debtors were kept out of the knowledge of their right to have the adjustment certified by the fraud of the decree-holders; in support of this view, he has pla...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: L. King and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal542
Harington, J.1. This is a matter in which an order has been made directing a Mr. James to attend here to be examined. The order was made in pursuance of the statute which directs this Court to act in aid of the Bankruptcy Court at home. Mr. James objects that he ought not to be examined because the order ought not to have been made. Inasmuch as the order was made ex parte, it is open to him to take the objection that the order ought not to be made, and that this Court had no jurisdiction in the matter before it to direct him to be examined against his will. The question to be considered and which has been argued at some length is whether on the materials before me this Court has jurisdiction to examine Mr. James under the provision of the law directing the English Court to authorise another Court to act in aid. Now the section dealing with this matter is Section 126 of the Indian Insolvency Act, which provides that all Courts having jurisdiction under this Act shall make such orders an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »