Kolkata Court May 1911 Judgments
Chalho Singh Vs. Jharo Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal995
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. The Subject matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal is a tract of 17 bighas of land in mouzah Sripat Ratankhap of which the plaintiffs-appellants seek to recover possession on the ground that it formed their nagdi kasht land. The defendants denied that the land in dispute was the nagdi kasht of the plaintiffs. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal the District Judge has reversed that decision.2. The plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court. On their behalf the decision of the District Judge has been challenged on the ground that he has excluded from consideration two pieces of documentary evidence which are admissible in evidence and had been rightly admitted as such by the Court of first instance. The documents in question, are certain teishkhana papers and a road-cess return.3. In so far as the first document is concerned, it has been contended that it is admissible in evidence upon the authority of the decision...
Tag this Judgment!Chalho Singh and ors. Vs. Jharo Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1911
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.61
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal is a tract of 17 bighas of land in Mouzah Sripat Ratankhap of which the plaintiffs-appellants seek to recover possession on the ground that it formed their nagdi kasht land. The defendants denied that the land in dispute was the nagdi kasht of the plaintiffs. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal, the District Judge has reversed that decision.2. The plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court. On their behalf, the decision of the District Judge has been challenged on the ground that he has excluded from consideration two pieces of documentary evidence which are admissible in evidence and had been rightly admitted as such by the Court of first instance. The documents in question are certain teishkhana papers and a road-cess return.3. In so far as the first document is concerned, it has been contended that it is admissible in evidence upon the authority of the decision of this Court in the case...
Tag this Judgment!Kamini Mohan Das Gupta Vs. Harendra Kumar Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal876,13Ind.Cas.782
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. We are asked in this Rule to set aside an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Magura, purporting to be under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on two grounds, namely, first, that the terms of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not duly complied with, and, secondly, that there is no probability of a breach of the peace.2. The facts of the case are sufficiently trivial. They appear to be these. The parties are pleaders at Magura. The petitioner began to excavate a tank near his house, and the police apprehending that, if he continued to do so, the house of the opposite party would sooner or later go down into the bed of the tank, approached the Magistrate to take action under Section 133. The Magistrate appears to have had an interview with the pleaders, and to have advised them to compromise. Then, on the 19th April 1911, and without further enquiry and .without recording any urgency in the matter, the Magistrate made his Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Rudolf Stallmann Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal547
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is an application under Section 15 of the High Courts Act, 1861, in respect of certain proceedings under the Indian Extradition Act, 1903, pending before the District. Magistrate of the 24-Pergannahs, at Alipore, against the petitioner Rudolf Stallmann alias Rudolf Von Konig, who was originally arrested on board the S.S. 'Caspian' as the steamer wafe coming up the river Hooghly on her way to the Port of Calcutta on the 26th April, 1911.2. The proceedings are in apparent compliance with the Extradition Act, but we are invited tissue a Rule, and to call up all the papers of the case, in order to quash the proceedings on two grounds: (i) that the District Magistrate of the 24-Pergannalis has no jurisdiction in the matter, and (ii) that there is no legal evidence before the District Magistrate to justify the detention of the petitioner.3. We have carefully considered this application since hearing learned Counsel yesterday, and, in our opinion, we have n...
Tag this Judgment!Giri NaraIn Chatterji Vs. Modhu Sudan Mukerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1911
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.751
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree whereby the Court below has dismissed a suit described as one for mesne profits or damages for use and occupation. The case for the plaintiff is that he purchased the property at a sale execution of a decree for rent but was unable to obtain possession as against the defendant. In 1895, he sued the defendant for declaration of title and recovery of possession. He obtained a decree which was confirmed in appeal in the year following. He executed the decree in 1898, but obtained only symbolical possession. Since then, the defendant has continued in actual occupation of the land and the plaintiff has sued successfully in 1898, 1902, 1904 and 1907 for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the land. The present suit was commenced in 1910 and here again the plaintiff asked for compensation for use and occupation. The Court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that as the plaintiff was not in possession at the date of the inst...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mahomed Zahur-ul-haq Vs. Shah Nazarul Haq and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.31
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree by which the Court below has dismissed a suit for recovery of money due upon an agreement. There was no substantial controversy as to the circumstances under which the agreement was made or was sought to be enforced.2. One Bibi Hasan Banu had a dispute with the defendant and the respondent asked the plaintiff to intervene and have the dispute settled. The plaintiff was a friend of the father-in-law of this lady and the defendant was anxious that he should exercise his influence with the members of the family to effect a compromise of the dispute. At the same time, he promised to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 300 as his remuneration, if the compromise was satisfactorily effected. The dispute has been settled and the plaintiff now seeks to recover the promised money from the defendant. The defendant pleads that the agreement is opposed to public policy and is not enforceable in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contra...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Bindhubala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.125
1. In this case we are invited to set aside the decree made under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act The subject-matter of the litigation appears to be a house which was at one time the property of one Mr. Cheap and subsequently appears to have been more or less abandoned. The case for the plaintiffs is that they, along with their co-sharers who are made pro forma defendants, were in possession of the disputed property till they were dispossessed by the first defendant on the 6th November 1909. They alleged that they could rot induce their co-sharers to join with them as plaintiffs and were consequently obliged to place them on the record as pro forma defendants. They ask for recovery of possession on the ground that the first defendant ought not to interfere with their possession. The learned Munsif, in an exhaustive judgment, has found that the plaintiffs were in possession as stated by them and that the first defendant was not in possession of the property till he raised the pagar...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Swami Vs. Kalandi Patra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.127
1. We are invited in this Rule to discharge an order by which the Court of appeal below, in concurrence with the Court of first instance, has refused to set aside an ex parte decree in a contribution suit at the instance of the petitioners who were the second and third defendants. The application was made under Rule 13 of Order IX which provides that an ex parte decree may be set aside if the defendant satisfies the Court that the summons was not-duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. The case before us does not fall within the second branch of the rule, because it has been found by the Court below that the petitioners wore aware of the suit and did not appear at the hearing. If the petitioners can succeed it can only be on the ground that the summonses were not duly served upon them. Now, upon this part of the case the admitted facts are that the peon, as stated in his return, could not find the petitioners ...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy Krishna Karmakar Vs. Ranjit Lal Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal694
Stephen, J.1. The question I have to decide in this case is which of two adoptions is legal. The facts are simple and, if I accept all the evidence that has been given before me, are as follows: - One Shib Krishna Karmakar, a Hindu governed by the Bengal School of Hindu Law, and a Sudra by caste, died on the 29th November, 1903, leaving two widows, Biraja Sundari, the senior and Shashibala Dasee, the junior. The day before his death he executed an anumatipatra, the translation of which is as follows: 'Anumatipatra for taking adopted son is executed to the following effect by Sri Shib Krishna Karmakar, father's name the late Ramkristo Karmakar, by occupation gold and silversmith, inhabitant of Sabhar, in favour of the first wife Sreemutty Biraja Sundari Dasee and the second wife Shashibala Dasee. I am now ailing, having been attacked with cholera. There is no knowing what may happen to the transient body. I have no son born of my loin, although, in the hope of perpetuating the generatio...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Chandra Roy Chowdhury Vs. Biraj Kamini Dasee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal87
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in an action for recovery of possession of landed property upon declaration of title, and for mesne profits for the period of dispossession. The case for the plaintiffs-respondents briefly stated is as follows. The subject-matter of the litigation belonged to their ancestor Navadwip Chandra Sarkar who made a testamentary disposition of his properties on the 22nd May 1889, and died four days later. The will provided that upon the death of the 'testator, one-fotirth share of his landed property would pass to Biraj Kamini Dasi, the wife of his eldest son, Girish Chandra Sarkar. Another one-fourth share would be taken by Radha Ballav Sarkar and Jagat Ballav Sarkar, his grandsons by his predeceased son, Govinda Chandra Sarkar. The remaining half share would pass to the wives of his sons Bhagaban Chandra Sarkar and Harish Chandra Sarkar immediately upon their marriage, and so long as these sons would not marry, his youngest s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »