Kolkata Court March 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.
In Re: Tincowri Santra, a Pleader
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.208
Woodroffe, J.1. This is reference under the Legal Practitioners Act in the matter of one Tincowri Santra, a Pleader, practicing in the Court of the District Judge of Midnapore. The learned District Judge has called upon the said Tincowri Santra to show cause why he should not be reported to the High Court under Section 13 of that Act; and the sole ground upon which the report proceeds is this: It appeared during the course of a criminal trial against one Debendra Nath Mullik that the Pleader in question had sent two letters,(which have been marked Exhibits B and D in that case) to the accused, who is a connection of his. Money was due to the Pleader at that time in respect of professional work done, and he apparently could not get that money paid. With a view to secure payment, he, according to the report, falsely stated that he had embezzled money of his clients, and he made this statement with a view to working on the feelings of his relation in order to induca him to suppose that if...
Kumar Kalanand Singh and anr. Vs. Bhekh Dhari Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.805
Woodroffe, J.1. The two main questions which have been argued in this appeal are first, as to the applicability of Section 44(c) of the Bengal Tenancy Act to the facts of the present case, and secondly, as to the applicability of Section 45 of that Act, which was in force at the time when the suit was brought but was repealed by the Bengal Council Act I of 1909.2. If Section 44(c) does not apply, that is, if it be a fact, as the lower Appellate Court has found, that the defendants were not admitted to occupation by the plaintiffs under the kabuliat of the 19th January 1901, then the suit fails on that ground. This finding of fact of the Subordinate Judge has been impugned, and it has been contended that the finding is not one of pure fact but of mixed fact and law, and, as such, erroneous. It is not, however, necessary further to inquire into this part of the case for, assuming for the sake of argument, but without deciding in favour of the plaintiffs, that Section 44(c) of the Bengal ...
Raja Benoy Krishna Deb Vs. Debendra Krishna Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.660
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for rent has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 11,953-6 on account of rent, cesses and interest, due under a kabuliat, dated 2nd Sravan 1310 (July 1903). As security for payment of the rent, the plaintiff took a deposit from the defendants of Rs. 6,500 in cash and by a deed of even date a mortgage from them of certain other immoveable properties. The plaintiff brought this suit for a personal decree, giving credit for the Rs. 6,500 (as to which no question now arises) and reserving his remedies under the security bond for a separate suit. The learned Subordinate Judge appears to have thought that the question in the case was whether there, was any personal obligation on the part of the defendants to pay, and he reluctantly came to the conclusion that there was not. He says 'I am of opinion that it (the contract) creates no personal liability on the part of the mortgagors to pay distinct f...
Kamal Kumar Nandi and ors. Vs. Kali Meah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.662
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises appear sufficiently from the judgment of the Courts below. The only point which has been urged before us is that defendant No. 14 as the successor-in-interest of Rai Bahadur Nitya nund Roy is in some way estopped as against the plaintiffs from denying that Judhister was entitled to the entire 2 annas 6 pies 5 krants share comprised in his mortgage to Nemai Charan Nandi, the predecessor in-interest of the plaintiffs. There is no question that the 2 annas 6 pies 5 krants share belonged to Judhistir and his brother Madan, and that Judhister was entitled only to a moiety though he purported to mortgage the whole. The mortgage-decree as passed was against Judhistir alone. After the preliminary decree and before the decree absolute, Nityanund Roy was made a party to the suit. This was because he had purchased mehal Ajodhya Ram, being Taraf No. 2 of mouzah Madarsha at a revenue sale. This Taraf comprised the 2 annas 6 pies 5 krants shar...
Mufti Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. Shaikh MomIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.815
1. This appeal relates only to plot No. 1 of schedule No. 1 in the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge has with regard to this plot dismissed the plaintiff's claim for khas possession finding that Amina Bibi, defendant No. 5, has throughout been in possession of this plot as tenant and that he has in no way forfeited her right as such.2. It was argued before us that inasmuch as Amina Bibi was not made a party in the appeal in the Court below no decree could be passed in her favour by this Court. But we are of opinion that that contention is not sound. Defendant No. 5 was not a party to the appeal in the Court below which was preferred by defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs who come to this Court on appeal hare joined Amina Bibi, defendant No. 5, as a party-respondent, and it appears to us that it is not only open to us but our duty to pass a decree which shall be final and shall decide the rights of all the parties to the suit who are parties to this appeal, That authority is clearly giv...
Bahar Mahmud Bepari and anr. Vs. Sader Mahmud Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.837
Coxe, J.1. The facts which are important for the decision of this appeal are as follows: The holdings in suit belonged in 1310 to Raja Sundari and Sasi Mohan Saha. Sasi Mohan Saha with certain other persons purported to transfer them in that year to the Vitarbandh Zemindars to meet a claim made on them as sureties for one Behari Lal Mukhtar. It is found by both Courts that this was not a surrender but a transfer. Raja Sundari sold her interest to certain persons who sold it to the plaintiffs in 1312. The plaintiffs, however, were unable to get undisputed possession and hence have brought this suit. The defendant claims the holding as a tenant with whom the Vitarbandh Zemindars settled the lands after they had obtained the transfer from Sasi Mohan Saha and others.2. The Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree for the 3rd and 4th holdings but not for the 1st and 2nd. The learned District Judge dismissed the suit with respect to all the holdings. The plaintiff appeals with respect to all. The ...
Kesho Prasad Singh Vs. the Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal553
Mookerjee and Teunon, JJ.1. The allegations upon which this Rule was issued on an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, may be briefly set out. Maharani Beni Prasad Koeri, Maharani of Dumraon, died on the 13th December 1907. The petitioner, Kesho Prasad Singh, alleges that he thereupon became entitled to the Dumraon Raj estate, but on the 16th December 1907, the Court of Wards declared an infant, Jung Bahadur Singh, as a ward of the Court and took possession of the estate as if it belonged to the infant in question. The petitioner further alleges that he addressed various memorials to the Government of Bengal and protested against the possession by the Court of Wards of the said Raj. As his efforts were unsuccessful, he commenced an action on the 5th February 1909, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad, against the infant represented by his guardian and the Collector of Shahabad as representing the Court of Wards. The trial of the suit lasted from the 1st...
Srinibash Prasad Singh Vs. Kesho Prasad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal754
Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule was granted upon an application under Order XLI, Rule 5, of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 for stay of execution of the decree of the Court below. At the time the Rule was issued, the Court also made an order under Sub-rule (4) of that Rule for stay of execution pending the hearing of the application. The circumstances under which the application has been made may be briefly narrated. Maharani Beni Prasad Keori of Dumraon died on the 13th December, 1907. The plaintiff Kesho Prasad Singh alleges that two days later he was evicted from the Raj estate, though he was the rightful owner thereof, and on the 16th December, 1907, the Court of Wards declared an infant, Jung Bahadur Singh, now known as Maharaj Kumar Srinibash Prasad Singh, as the owner thereof and took possession of the Raj on his behalf. On the 5th February, 1909, Kesho Prasad Singh commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad for declaration of his title, for the recovery of...
Srinibas Prosad Singh and anr. Vs. Kesho Prosad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.862
Mookerji, J.1. This rule was granted upon an application under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, for stay of execution of the decree of the Court below. At the time the rule was issued, the Court also made an order under sub-rule (4) of that rule for stay of execution pending the hearing of the application. The circumstances under which the application has been made may be briefly narrated. Maharani Beni Prasad Kuari of Dumraon died on the 13th December 1907. The plaintiff, Kesho Prosad Singh, alleges that two days later, he was evicted from the Raj estate, though he was the rightful owner thereof, and on the 16th December 1907 the Court of Wards declared an infant Jung Bahadur Singh, now known as Maharaj Kumar Srinivasa Prosad Singh, as the owner thereof and took possession of the Raj on his behalf. On the 5th February 1909, Kesho Prosad Singh commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad for declaration of his title, for recovery of posses...
Sahebjan Bewa Vs. Ansaruddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal475
Mookerjee and Teunon, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land. The subject matter of the dispute originally belonged to a Mahomedan by name Sarafat, who died about the year 1897. He left two widows, who are the first two defendants in the present suit, a son, now dead, by the second widow, and two sons by another wife who had predeceased him. He also left a nephew, the son of his .brother, who is the plaintiff in the present action. After his death his property, after successive devolutions to the details of which reference is not necessary for our present purpose, vested in his son Saiduddin. Upon the death of the latter, the plaintiff sues to recover possession of a two-thirds share by right of inheritance. The claim is resisted by the first widow as also by two usufructuary mortgagees, who have derived title from the heirs of the original owner. The first widow resists the claim on the ground that so long as her dower to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »