Kolkata Court May 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.
Gouri Dutt Vs. Amar Chand and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.907
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in an action for recovery of money, commenced by the plaintiffs under the penultimate paragraph of Section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. There is no controversy between the parties as to the circumstances under which the claim has been put forward. The plaintiffs allege that they themselves as well as the first, fourth and fifth defendants, held decrees for money against the second defendant, that the latter also held a decree for money against the third defendant, and that in execution of their decrees they have attachad the decree held by the second defendant against the third defendant. The Court thereupon directed rateable distribution of the assets that might be realised in execution under Section 295 of the Code of 1882. Effect was given to this order, a certain sum was realised and distributed according to law. It appears, however, that although the plaintiffs as well as the first, fourth and fifth defendants ha...
Abdul HossaIn Vs. Ram Charan Law
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal687
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The litigants in this suit are two neighbouring house-owners, the plaintiff being the owner of No. 17, Ezra Street, and the defendant of No. 16 Ezra Street, in the town of Calcutta, and the point in dispute is whether a wall which in December 1908 or, February 1909 was erected by the defendant in the immediate proximity of the plaintiff's premises was or was not wrongful encroachment entitling the plaintiff to relief in this Court.2. The plaintiff alleges that the wall was built on his land, and that it therefore constituted a trespass. The defendant on the other hand denies this, and he goes on to plead that even if it was built on the plaintiff's land, still it occupied the site of an old wall of his on that land which had stoops there for more than thirty years; and so he says, any claim by way of trespass now fails.3. The case came in the first instance before Mr. Justice Fletcher who decided in the defendant's favour, his view being that the plaintiff h...
Surendra Narayan Adhicary Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal522,16Ind.Cas.327
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The appellant, Surendra Narayan Adhicary, has been convicted under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, on a charge of sedition, in that he made manuscript copies of certain seditious writings and circulated them through the post to one Durjodhan Das, a student in the Malda Zilla School. It is conceded, and we have satisfied ourselves, that the writings are seditious. But it has been urged by learned Counsel for the appellant, first, that the appellant did not post or publish the packet in question; secondly, that he did not write the incriminating matter; and, thirdly, that the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment is too severe, because the seditious writings were intercepted by the Head-master and were not read by the addressee.2. We have examined the evidence, and in our opinion the facts are beyond all reasonable doubt. The Post-master proves that the packet was posted at his office, and he saw the appellant, with whom he was acquainted, at ...
Shashi Bhushan Beed Vs. Jotindra Nath Roy Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal681
Coxe and Teunon, JJ.1. This is a suit for partition of the lands described in the two schedules attached to the plaint. It is admitted that the plaintiff is co-owner with the defendants of the lands described in schedule 2; but his title to, and possession of, any interest in the lands described in the first schedule to the plaint is denied.2. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, and a preliminary decree for partition was passed.3. The defendants appealed to the District Judge. The District Judge came to no clear finding on the principal question in the suit, namely, whether the plaintiff was entitled to partition of the lands described in the first schedule. He regarded the suit as one to obtain a declaration of the plaintiff's title and possession, under the garb of a suit for partition; and he considered that the court-fee payable should be calculated ad valorem on the property in suit and the case retried as a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. This...
Narsing NaraIn Vs. Shiekh Jahi Mistry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.414
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, who was an infant at the time of the commencement of this suit, for a declaration that an ex parte decree passed against him on the 18th March 1904 and the execution sale held on the basis thereof, have not in any manner affected his interest. It appears that on the 17th September 1903, the defendants-respondents sued the plaintiff, then an infant, and several other persons for contribution. The then plaintiffs applied that the mother of the infant might be appointed guardian ad litem. Notice was issued in due course upon the infant as also on his mother. The mother, however, did not enter appearance. Thereupon, the Court recorded the following order: 'On the plaintiffs' petition supported by an affidavit Musammat Ojahar is appointed guardian ad litem on behalf of the minor defendant in this case.' There was no appearance on behalf of the infant at the trial and the suit was decreed as against him ex parte. In execution of that decree hi...
Asimaddi Sheikh Vs. Sundari Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal339
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This case comes before us by way of appeal from an appellate order, and a preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. The application which has resulted in this appeal arises out of Rule 89 of order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. The application under Rule 89 was disallowed, and the Court, as required by Rule 92, made an order confirming the sale. Thereupon, the sale became absolute. Prom such an order an appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (J), which provides that an. appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 92 of Order XXI setting aside or refusing to set aside a, sale. Section 104, Sub-section (2) provides that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section, and among the orders that came within the operation of that sub-section is an order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules. An endeavour has been made to escape from this clear provision of the law by the help of d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›