Kolkata Court July 1911 Judgments
Akhju Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Jagannath Prasad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.1
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in an action in ejectment. The plaintiff-respondent commenced this suit on the ground that the laid in the occupation of the appellant was zerait and that the defendant had no right to continue in occupation thereof after the expiry of the term of a lease granted to him on the 13th May, 1902. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that the land was not zerait, that it constituted an occupancy holding and that he was not liable to be evicted. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the District Judge has decreed the claim. On behalf of the defendant, this decision has been assail ed substantially on three grounds, namely, first that the conclusion that the land in zerait is based upon evidence which is not admissible in law; secondly, that the Judge has not considered whether the defendant was protected from ejectment under Section 116 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, even if it was conceded that the case fell ...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath Roy Vs. Sarat Chandra Singh Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal319
Chitty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover certain property by right of inheritance to one Panchi Barmani who died unmarried on 6th Jane 1906. The Subordinate Judge has decided in the plaintiffs favour and the defendants have appealed. Kinu Sinha Roy, father of the plaintiffs, and Lac lima n Sinha Roy were two brothers. Kinu Sinha Roy died on 17th August 1891, leaving three sons, the plaintiffs, and Gopal Chandra, who subsequently died unmarried. Lachman Sinha Roy died on 18th April 1903, leaving a will dated 20th July 1902, of which his son-in-law, defendant No. 1, is executor. Lachman Sinha Roy left a widow Sasikala and three daughters, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and Panchi Barmani. Lachman by his will made a disposition of his property in favour of his wife and daughters. The particulars are immaterial for our present purpose. Sasikala died on 18th April 1905, having made a will, dated 20th December 1901, by which she gave her property to her th...
Tag this Judgment!Askar Mian and ors. Vs. Sasedali Bara Bhuyian and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1911
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.424
1. This appeal is directed against a decree in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents for recovery of possession of land upon declaration of title. The Courts below have concurrently found that on the 3rd September 1896, the lands were purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendants. Notwithstanding this sale, the defendants got themselves registered under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and kept the plaintiffs out of possession; the latter have consequently been driven to seek the assistance of the Court.2. The defendants originally held under a settlement which was in operation from the 1st April 1883 to the 31st March 1898. In 1894, there was a survey for the purposes of a fresh settlement, but the term of the previous settlement was extended for two years and the new settlement did not take effect before the 1st April 1900. At the time when the new settlement was made, the defendants were able to obtain settlement from the Revenue Authorities, notwithstanding ...
Tag this Judgment!Fazar Ali and ors. Vs. Mazharulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1911
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.336
1. In this case, a Rule was issued for transfer on the ground that the learned Deputy Magistrate, having made up his mind to commit the accused to Sessions before the defence was heard and the witnesses cross examined, was acting in an unjudicial and prejudiced frame of mind; and secondly, that the learned Deputy Magistrate, having made a local investigation without recording the result, has pot himself in the position of a witness and in the interest of justice ought not to be allowed to proceed with the case.2. We take the second point first as it is of the least importance. As a matter of fact, if the Deputy Magistrate has put himself in the position of a witness, the commitment of the case to the Sessions will meet the ends of justice, inasmuch, as he will be able to be called as a witness at the Sessions. But we find that he went to the spot to enable him to understand the evidence at the special request of the defence, and on his return he re-considered the whole of the prosecuti...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamaya Prosad Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Khelawan Singh Thakur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.911
1. This appeal is directed against the decree in a suit for recovery of a sum of money claimed as malikana. The Court below has found that the defendants are liable to pay the malikana to the plaintiff and the question of their liability has not been raised in this Court. But the decision of the District Judge has been assailed on four grounds; namely, first, that the amount of the net assets has been fixed at too high a figure; secondly, that the Government revenue and the cesses should have been deducted from the assets before the malikana was calculated; thirdly, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any sum by way of interest, and, fourthly, that the decree as drawn up is not in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.2. In support of the first point urged on behalf of the appellants, it has been contended that the burden was upon the plaintiffs to establish the amount of assets with reference to which malikana had to be calculated, that they have not...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Prosad Vs. Rukmini Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.148
1. This appeal is directed against the decree in a suit by a Hindu lady to enforce her right of maintenance under an ekrarnamah executed in her favour by her brother-in-law on the 27th May 1865. It appears that one Sobhan Lal left three sons, Kishen Bullabh, Gopi Bullabh and Joi Bullabh, Joi Bullah left a widow Rukmini Koer and a daughter Prasan Bibi. Gopi Ballabh died childless. Kishen Ballabh left a son Brij Bhukan. After the death of Joi Bullabh disputes broke out between his widow and his brother Kishan Bullabh, and on the 27th May 1865, Kishen Bullabh executed an ekrarnamah, on the strength of which Rukmini Koer now seeks to enforce her right of maintenance. Kishen Bullabh died many years ago and the suit has been brought against the grandsons of Brij Bhukhan by his daughter Mabarani Bibi. The Court below has held that the plaintiff is entitled to receive maintenance at the rate of Rs. 650 per year for the whole period in suit, that is, from the be ginning of Joit 1308 to the end ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Lal Gupta and ors. Vs. Chulhan Lal Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.677
1. This appeal is directed against the preliminary decree in a suit for partition. The parties litigants are members of a family of Gayals and are descended from one Sankar Lal who died on the 13th September 1886. Sankar Lal had three sons, Madho Lal, Narayan Lal and Gobind Lal. Of these, Madho Lal, who died in the life-time of his father on the 11th November 1881, left a widow and an infant son, Chulhan Lal, who is the plaintiff-respondent before this Court. The defendants are Narayan Lal and Gobind Lal. Of these, Narayan Lal died during the pendency of this litigation in the Court below on the 1st. March 1910. Thereupon his sons, Gopal Lal and Damodar Lal, were brought on the record as his representatives-in-interest.2. The case for the plaintiff is that the properties mentioned in the schedule are joint family properties and he is entitled to a one-third share in all of them. The defence substantially is that although the family was joint up to the year 1891, there was a separation ...
Tag this Judgment!Prayag Nara N. Singh Vs. Sukdeo NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.170
1. This appeal is directed against three orders which purport to have been made in course of proceedings in execution of a decree in a suit for partition of joint properties. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of the appeal.2. It appears that the dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration and on the 21st December 1906, a decree was made on the basis of the award of the arbitrators. The arbitrators appear to have suggested that the properties should be divided in proceedings in execution of the decree except one property which they themselves had divided. The Sub-Judge accepted this suggestion and the result was that the preliminary decree which was drawn up directed that the properties which remained undivided be divided in execution proceedings. Protracted investigations have taken place in the execution proceedings and, on two previous occasions appeals were preferred to this Court against orders made in the proceedings on the basis that the orders ...
Tag this Judgment!Narak Lal Vs. Thagoo Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.455
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in an action commenced by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. It appears that in 1907 the first defendant in execution of a decree held by him against the second defendant sought to attach the property now in dispute. The plaintiff preferred a claim under Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 on the allegation that the second defendant had neither any title to, nor possession over, the disputed property and that the land was his private land and was not liable to be sold in execution of the decree held by the first defendant. The execution Court adjudicated upon the claim and disallowed it. On the 4th April 1903, the plaintiff commenced this action for declaration that the order of the 25th May 1907 was erroneous, that he was the proprietor of the land and that the first defendant had no right in execution of his decree against the second defendant to bring the property to sa...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Kali Sankar Sahai and ors. Vs. Maharajah Pratap Udai Nath Sahi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.691
1. This appeal arises Out of a suit brought by the Maharaja of Chota Nagpur for resumption of three villages, Koinjara, Dodhra and Kudarkon, on the allegation that the villages were held as a maintenance jagir for life in joint tenancy by three ladies Deokali Koer, Badam Koer and Khetrani Koer, of whom the last surviving, Khetrani Koer, died on the 19th August 1901; that the defendant No. 1, Kali Sunkar Sahai, had been holding these mouzas under a registered moakarari deed, dated 18th December 1867, from Badam Koer and Khetrani Koer and on the 19th November 1895 had purchased the right, title and interest of the ladies in a sale under Section 124, Act I, B.C., of 1879, in the nam 85 of himself and his wife and sons, defendants Nos.2 to 6. Mesne profits from 1958 S. were also claimed. The defence was that the jagir of the three villages was not a life jagir for maintenance of the three ladies but was an absolute jagir granted to the ancestors of their husbands which the ladies had been ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »