Kolkata Court July 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.
Gopal Lal Sahai Vs. Bahorani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.900
1. The sole question of law which arises in this appeal is, whether the suit is barred by limitation as has been held by the Subordinate Judge in reversal of the decision of the Court of first instance. The plaintiff commenced this action on the 29th October 1908 for declaration of his title to a house purchased by him on the 26th October 1896 and for recovery of possession thereof. His title was disputed by the defendants, and it was also urged that the claim was barred by limitation. The Courts below have concurrently found upon the merits in his favour, but they have differed on the question of limitation. It is not disputed that the Court was closed on the 26th October 1908 and did not re-open after the annual vacation till the 29th October 1908. The plaint was presented on that date, but it was found that the full amount of Court-fees had not been paid on the plaint. Thereupon, the following order was made; Plaintiff to file deficit Court-fee and also summons and talbana and copie...
Mohant Jagarnath Das Vs. Bibi Rupa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.85
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal is a parcel of 4 bighas of Fakirana land which admittedly formed part of the endowed properties belonging to the Panapur Math. It appears that Mohant Siaram Das, the spiritual head of this endowment, died on the 12th August 1905. Upon his death, disputes arose as to the succession to the office of Mohant, and on the 27th Jane 1906, these disputes were settled among three rival claimants by name Baldeo Das, Jagar Nath Das and Saligram Das. The parties agreed that Baldeo Das would continue to be the Mohant during his life-time and that upon his death, Jagar Nath Das would succeed as Mohant of the two Asthals at Panapur Nariar and Berhampura while Saligram Das would succeed as the Mohant of the Asthal at Chapra Rupnath. It was further arranged, that, daring the life-time of Baldeo, Jagar Nath would be joint manager with him in respect of the two Asthals to which he would be entitled to succeed upon his death, whil...
Amlook Chand Parrack Vs. Sarat Chunder Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal913
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The appellant is a mortgagee, and the mortgage under which he claims is dated the 25th January 1886. On the 16th of December 1886, he obtained a decree on his mortgage by consent. On the 3rd of July 1909 he made the application out of which the present appeal arises: and, by that application,, he asks that he may be at liberty to-add Upendra Lal Bose as a party defendant to the .suit, and.that thereafter he may be at liberty to proceed to sell, pursuant to the decree made in this suit on the 16th December 1886, an undivided quarter share of the defendant Sarat Chandra Mukerjee of, and in premises No. 30 formerly No. 49, Clive Street, Calcutta, and Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Bishoo Babu's Lane, Kidderpore, and the family dwelling house at Kidderpore, and that for .the purpose of such sale all necessary directions may be given to the Registrar. Mr. U.L. Bose's position is that on the 1st December 1903, he became a purchaser of the Clive Street property, and in his affida...
Lakshmi Charan Saha Vs. Nur Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal936
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The defendant No. 1 obtained at Akyab an ex parte decree upon a promissory note said to have been executed by the plaintiff at Akyab. The plaintiff had the decree set aside under Section 108 of the Civil Procedure Code, but could not appear at the hearing of the revived suit so that an ex parte decree was again passed. The result is analogous to a case in which there is an ex parte decree after actual service, of summons. The plaintiff brings the present suit on the allegation that he never went to Akyab, never received any money there from the defendant and never executed any promissory note in his favour, so that the decree was based on no cause of action and fraudulent, and praying for declarations to that effect. The lower Courts have held that the plaintiff never went to Akyab, never received any money from the' defendant No. 1 there, and never executed the promissory note so that the whole proceeding was fraudulent. It has been argued in second appeal before u...
Raj Kumar Sarkar Vs. Rajani Kanta Chakravarti and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.449
1. In this case the plaintiff has appealed. He sued for the rent of a durpatni mehal at the rate of Rs. 69. The defendants admitted rent at the rate of Rs. 64, and said that it was divided into halves each defendant being liable for Rs. 32. The lower Courts passed a decree for the plaintiff on these terms.2. It appears that the tenancy was created in September 1866 by a kabuliat which, no doubt, stated the annual jama to be at Rs. 69. But we find a letter on the record within a few days after (Exhibit B) in which it is expressly stated that the jama should be reduced to Rs. 64: It has been found by the lower Courts that the rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 64 per annum for over 30 years. In 1871 there was an alienation of the tenant's interest and the purchasers applied to the landlord for mutation of their names (Exhibit C). Five years later in 1876 we find the document, Exhibit D, a letter, showing that the jama was then recorded at Rs. 64 The plaintiff purchased the landlord's inter...
Jarat Kumari Dassi Vs. Bissessur Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal245
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. After setting out the facts, his Lordship continued: I propose here to examine the judgment under appeal. The key to the decision is, I think, this: there are a number of circumstances which in the opinion of the learned Judge create suspicion: the occasion for suspicion has not been removed therefore the will has not been proved.2. In so handling the case the learned Judge professed to be guided by Tyrrell v. Painton (1894). As I understand that decision it laid down no new principle, but it merely applied a well established principle to an exceptional set of circumstances. That principle was enunciated in Barry v. Butlin (1838) Moo. P.C. 480 where it was said: 'The rules of law according to which cases of this nature are to be decided do not admit of any dispute so far as they are necessary to the determination of the present appeal, and they have been acquiesced in on both sides. These rules are two: The first, the onus probandi lies in every ca...
E. Dalgliesh and ors. Vs. Nandan Misser and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.186
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court below has determined the principle whereupon mesne profits are to be assessed and directed their ascertainment by a Commissioner. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of the appeal on the ground that the order in question is not appealable as an order under any provision of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 nor is it appeal-able as a decree.2. On the 26th July 1909, the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs who thereupon became entitled to obtain possession. The decree also directed that mesne profits would be ascertained after delivery of possession of the land. It is obvious that the decree was made in this form under Rule 12 of Order XX of the Code of 1908. That Rule provides that where the suit is for recovery of possession of immoveable property and for mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree for possession of the property directing an inquiry as to mesne profits from t...
U. Hedlot Khasia and anr. Vs. Karan Khasiani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.377
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal is a tract of land whereof settlement was obtained by one U. Timon from the Government on the 21st October 1884, under a qubuliat executed for a term of ten years. The grantee died shortly after, and left behind him a brother U. Hedlot and two sisters Ka Sengai and Ka Laban. Immediately after his death, his brother, in 1885, got his own came entered in the qubuliat as his successor-in-interest and apparently continued in possession thereafter. U. Hedlot transferred a portion of his interest in the disputed land to some of the defendants on the 22nd March 1887. On the 13th November 1895, the two sisters of U. Timon commenced an action for declaration of title to the disputed land and for recovery of possession. Their case in substance was, that they were Khasias and that under the customary rules of inheritance prevalent amongst them, sisters were entitled to succeed in preference to brothers. The defendants to ...
Abdul Karim Patwari Vs. Abdul Rahman and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.364
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the plaintiff in a suit commenced by him for ejectment of the defendant under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground that he held under a lease the term whereof had expired. It appears that three persons, by name, Zahiruddin, Abdur Rahim and Samiruddin were tenants of a ryati holding. Samiruddin transferred his one-third interest in the holding to the plaintiff on the 9th May 1899, and took from him a sub-lease of the homestead for a term of 9 years. The case for the plaintiff is, that although the term has expired the defendant has not vacated the land. The defendant resists the claim on the ground that under the terms of the lease he is entitled to continue in occupation even after the expiry of the term thereof.2. The Court of first instance held that the incidents of the tenancy were regulated by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act and that under Section 49 Clause (a) the defendant was liable to be evicted. Upon appeal the Subordi...
Banbihari Kapur Vs. Khetra Pal Singh Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.785
1. One Ballav Lal barman was the holder of permanent tenure under defendant No. 1 and his predecessor-in-interest. In 1857 Bally Lal executed kabala in respect of this tenure in favour of his wife Radhamani. Ballav Lal, however, continued as the registered tenant until his death in 1891 or thereabout. He was succeeded by his grandson Shyama Prosad who was a minor at the time living under the guardianship of his grand-mother Radhamani and mothewr Kali Moti. The collections in the Mofussil were made in the name of Radhamani and she mortgaged the tenure to the plaintiff on the 7th December, 1894 for Rs. 1,499. About three weeks after this on the 28th December, 1894, defendant No. 1 took from Radhamani a kihtbandy bond for the arrears due on the tenure. In this document Radhamani described her title under the purchase of 1857, and it can hardly be argued that the effect of the acceptance of that document was not to recognise Radhamani as the tenant of the mehnl. On the 27th May, 1896, Radh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »