Kolkata Court June 1911 Judgments
Chaitan Patgosi Mahapatra Vs. Kunja Behari Patnaik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal832
Holmwood and D. Chatterjee, JJ.1. The Deputy Collector passed a decree for over Rs. 100 for the rent of a tanki tenure. The learned Deputy Collector has upon a remand by this Court found that these tanki tenures are not transferable. The decree-holder put in an application for execution and soon after an application that some other property of the judgment-debtor might be sold: this other property, a kharidamafi tenure of the judgment-debtor was accordingly sold. Having come to know of the sale, he deposited the decretal amount with costs and the 5 per cent, payable to the auction-purchaser and asked for the cancelment of the sale: he also alleged fraud, irregularity and loss. The Deputy Collector held that Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code, did not apply to sales under Act X of 1859 and there was no other law under which he could set aside the sale. On an appeal, the Collector upheld the decision of the Deputy Collector, and on motion to us, we at first issued the above rule, a...
Tag this Judgment!Motichand and ors. Vs. Bajrang Sahai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1911
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.45
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants first party in a suit for recovery of money alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to satisfy the arrears of Government revenue in respect of an estate. The case for the plaintiff is that one Mukut Nath Prasad was interested to the extent of a third share in one of the Mouzahs by name Balapur included within the estate. On the 4th July 1874, Mukut Nath executed an usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff, and since then the plaintiff has been in possession of the properties covered by the mortgage. Under the terms of the mortgage contract, the Government revenue was payable by the mortgagor. In 1905, however, some of the proprietors of the estate made default in the payment of Government revenue, and the result was that the plaintiff was obliged to deposit several sums on various occasions to avert the sale of the properties. He now seeks to recover this sum from the defendants who are admittedly the proprietors of the estate...
Tag this Judgment!Begg, Dunlop and Co. Vs. Jagannath Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal104
Mookerjee, J.1. The Court is invited in this Rule to consider the legality of an order, by which the Subordinate Judge has directed attachment of a debt payable outside his jurisdiction. The circumstances under which the attachment has been made have hot formed the subject of controversy before us. The decree-holder, opposite party, one Jagannath Marwari, held a decree for money against one Rowland Hill, now deceased. Upon the death of the judgment-debtor, he sought to enforce the decree against his widow Annie Hill, as executrix to the estate of her husband. It appears that Rowland Hill was entitled obtain a large sum of money from Messrs. Begg, Dunlop. & Co. and Messrs. Williamson, Magor & Co. two firms of merchants carrying on business in the town of Calcutta. The decree under execution had been made by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, and the application for execution had, in the usual course, been presented to that Court. The decree-holder next applied for an order o...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Dayal Sukul and ors. Vs. Jadu Nandan Missir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.365
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court of Appeal below in reversal of the order of the Court of first instance has set aside an execution sale. It appears that the appellants obtained a decree for rent on the 12th August 1909. They applied for execution on the 14th September following and themselves purchased the properties at the execution sale on the 13th December 1909 for Rs. 99-11. The purchase-money was not brought into Court but was set off against the judgment-debt. On the 10th January 1910, the judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and on the next day deposited Rs. 100-3. On the day following, the Court directed the judgment-debtors to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 4-8 inasmuch as the office had reported that the amount deposited was insufficient. Thereupon, the judgment-debtors paid into Court Rs. 5 on the 13th January 1910. Two days later, upon the objection of the decree-holders auction-purch...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Das Kundu Chowdhry Vs. Kedar Nath Kundu Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal889
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The land in dispute is six cottahs out of an area of 32 bighas. So far as the finding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, it is clear that the land is in the possession of the first party, Fakir Chand Kanrar, the tenant of the same. But G the question remains whether the Deputy Magistrate had jurisdiction to proceed and pass an order under the section. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute involved the joint co-sharers who were brought on the record, c and that, in accordance 'with the rulings of this Court, the Deputy Magistrate should have refrained from exercising jurisdiction in the matter. It appears to us, however, that the order passed in favour of one tenant, as against the other persons setting up their tenancy, was a good and valid order which does not transgress the principle applied in Makhan Lal Roy v. Barada Kanta Roy (1906) 11 C.W.N. 512. The case here is one of exclusive possession claimed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamini Moni Debi Vs. Khettra Mohun Ganguli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.43
1. This Rule was heard ex parte on the 6th December last and was made absolute. The opposite party, who was the first defendant in the suit, subsequently applied to us to allow him an opportunity to make his submissions on the matter, and we acceded to his request as it transpired that, through no fault of his learned Vakil, he had not been represented at the original hearing. We have now heard the parties at considerable length and examined all the arguments addressed to us.2. The petitioner sued to recover from the first defendant a sum of money which the latter had withdrawn from Court where it had been deposited by the plaintiff. He resisted the claim on the ground that he was entitled to retain the sum withdrawn as he had a lien upon the money to the extent of Rs. 100, for fees due under an agreement for professional services rendered. The Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed because fees were due from her to the first defendant and the...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Proshad Mandal Vs. Rabindra Nath Dinda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.99
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order by which the Court of appeal below, in reversal of the order of the original Court, has directed the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for attempt to commit an offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The circumstances under which the order has been made are not disputed before this Court. On the 18th August 1909, the plaintiff, now opposite party before us, instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner. On the 7th September, the defendant filed his written statement in which he pleaded payment of the sum claimed to the officer of the plaintiff. On the 19th December the defendant filed what purported to be a receipt for the sum alleged to have been paid. On the 3rd March 1910, the plaintiff petitioned to the Court not to accept this receipt, because it had been filed too late. The plaintiff further appears to have impugned the genuineness...
Tag this Judgment!Nanji Koer Vs. Umatul Batul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.40
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in an action commenced by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration that she was the tenant of the disputed land, not under the appellant, but under the second defendant. It appears that in 1906 the first defendant sued the plaintiff for recovery of rent of the disputed property. The plaintiff resisted the claim on the ground that she held the land as tenant not under the plaintiff but under the second defendant in the present litigation. That defence failed on the merits, and the Court found that the relationship of landlord and tenant was proved to have existed between the parties to that suit. The result was that a decree for rent was made in favour of the present first defendant. On the 5th October 1907, the plaintiff commenced this action and she joined as parties defendants, the first defendant, the successful plaintiff in the previous litigation, and the second defendant who was alleged by her to be her landlord. There was als...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Pandey Vs. Berhamdeo Pandey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.29
1. This is a reference under Rule 7 of Order XLVI of the Code of 1908 by the District Judge of Mozafferpore and raises questions of considerable nicety and importance. It appears that on the 30fch January 1911, Lalji Pandey and others, as plaintiffs, instituted a suit in the Court of the Small Cause Court Judge of Mozafferpore against the defendants, Burhamdeo Pandey and others, for recovery of what was described as damages for use and occupation of certain land. The substance of the case for the plaintiffs was that they were the superior landlords of the disputed land; that the defendants were in occupation and were bound to cultivate the lands; that they had omitted wilfully to raise any crops, and that consequently during the years 1315 to 1318, the plaintiffs were deprived of their share of the crops. The plaintiffs, therefore, sought to recover Rs. 29-10-3 as the money value of what would have been their share of the produce which might have been grown in the land. The defendants ...
Tag this Judgment!Paimullah and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.783
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned officiating Sessions Judge of Dinajpur, who agreeing with both the assessors convicted the accused persons under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to five years' rigorous imprisonment each.2. It appears that certain persons entered the house of the complainant at night and having used great violence carried away his money, documents and jewelleries. The complainant told the Police that he only saw three persons. The Police after making investigation held that there had been dacoity in which at least six persons were concerned and they sent those six persons, among whom were the three present appellants, up to the Magistrate for trial preliminary to commitment under Section 395, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate discharged three of these accused for want of evidence and committed the three appellants to the Sessions under Section 395, that is, for being concerned in dacoity. The learned Sessions ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »