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.
Gopessuar Dutt and Jarat Kumari Dassi Vs. Bissessur Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.577
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for Probate of an instrument bearing date the 13th Ashar 1316, or the 27th of June, 1909, and purporting to be the Will of Gopessur Dntt and to bear his signature.2. Two questions arise: First, whether the signature to the instrument is that of Gopessuar Dutt, and, secondly, in case it is his signature, whether, when he placed it there, he was of sound mind.3. Ghitty, J., has decided against the Will on grounds which I will later discuss, and from his judgment the present appeal has been preferred.4. Gopessur Dutt died in the early hours of the 28th of June 1909 at the age of 36 or thereabouts. He left a widow, the appellant Sreematy Jarat Kumari Dassi, who seeks to propound the instrument in dispute. There was one daughter who died in infancy, but apart from this there was no child of the marriage. Gopessur was one of three brothers, the other two, both younger than he, being Bissessur, the caveator and respondent, and ...
Joymangal Pershad NaraIn Singh Vs. Jhagroo Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal933
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. On the 12th May 1911, this Court discharged a Rule obtained (by the petitioner) upon the sole ground, whether a certain Deputy Magistrate had jurisdiction to remove a case from the file of another Deputy Magistrate. Other grounds had been taken in that application, but this Court (Holmwood and Sharfuddin JJ.) gave a Rule on the one ground only. Nothing was said, in this Court's judgment, as to whether the petitioner had the Court's permission to renew his application on the other grounds on which that Rule had not been issued.3. On the 15th May 1911, we granted another Rule upon the first and fourth grounds specified, which had reference to matters other than the question of jurisdiction of one Deputy Magistrate to transfer proceedings from the file of another Magistrate. These grounds go much deeper into the, merits of the controversy between the parties, and, undoubtedly, challenge the jurisdiction of the Deputy Magistrate to pass an order declaring the...
Mohoram Sheikh Chaprasai and anr. Vs. TelamuddIn Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.606
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action in ejectment. The case for the plaintiffs respodents is that the defendants who were tenants-at-will were in occupation of the disputed land, that their tenancy has been terminate by a proper notice to quit and that they nevertheless refused to vacate the land. The defendants resisted the claim Substantially on two grounds, namely, first, that, they held under a permanent lease granted to their predecessors on the 23rd May 1848; and, secondly, that if the lease was not, established, there were circumstances from which the Court could draw the inference that the tenancy in its inception was of a permanent character. The Court of first instance found in favour of the genuineness of the lease and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Jude has declined to give the defendants the benefit of the lease for two reasons. He holds, first, that it is doubtful whether the lease is genuine, and, secondly, that if it is genuine...
Zamil Ahmed Vs. the Maharajah of Sikkim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal859
Coxe and Teunon, JJ.1. In this case the respondent obtained a decree in the Court of the Political Agent at Sikkim. An application was made to execute this decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Darjeeling. The appellant objected to the execution; but his objection was overruled, and hence this appeal.2. The first and principal point taken on his behalf is that it is not shown that the Court of the Political Agent at Sikkim is a 'Court established or continued by the authority of the Governor-General in Council,' within the meaning of Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears to us, however, that this objection cannot be sustained. By reference to the unifications of the 29th March, 1889, and 3rd October 1907, it appears that the Governor-General in Council declared that Section 229A of the Code of Civil Procedure, now Section 45, should apply to that Court. This appears to us to show Beyond dispute that that Court is a Court established or continued by the authority...
Jasoda Dassi Vs. Rameswari Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.374
1. This was a Rule calling on the other side to show cause why the order of the first Subordinate Judge, Alipore, dated 24th April 1911, setting aside the decree should not beset aside on the ground that the decree so expressed to be set aside was not passed ex parte and so there was no jurisdiction to make the order.2. Now it is perfectly clear that the order of the 24th April 1911 and the Rule both refer to the preliminary decree in this case and that on the authorities cannot be held to have been passed ex parte; for the evidence of the defendant was taken on commission and that evidence was evidently considered by the Court in its judgment where it says that it is proved and admitted that the plaintiff now represents the estate of the deceased Sib Nandan Lal, and on the authority of Kadar Khan v. Juggeswar Prasad Singh 35 C. 1023 where the case of the defendant has been partially entered into and the Counsel for the defendant applied for adjournment which was refused and thereupon ...
Nagendra Kumar Nath and anr. Vs. Hara Chandra Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.376
1. The subject matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal is a small parcel of land owned originally by three brothers Aukhil, Nagen and Rajani. Rajani is dead and his interest has passed by inheritance to his mother Subarna. Aukhil transferred the property to the father of the defendants-respondents on the assumption that the property belonged exclusively to him and he was competent to deal with it as his own. At that time his brothers Nagen and Rajani were infants. Upon attainment of majority Nagendra and his mother Subarna have brought this suit for declaration of title to two-thirds share of the land and for recovery of possession thereof. The defendants have sought to resist the claim substantially on the ground that Aukhil was the person exclusively entitled to the property and that the plaintiffs have no title to enforce against them. That defence has completely failed and it has been established that Aukhil was interested to the extent of a third share only. O...
Banbihari Kapur Vs. Khetra Pal Singh Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal923
Holmwood and D. Chatterjee, JJ.1. One Ballav Lal Barman was the holder of a permanent tenure under defendant No. 1 and his predecessor in interest. In 1857 Ballav Lal executed a 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 mother Kali Moti. The collections in the moffusil were made in the name of Radhamani and she mortgaged the 'tenure to the plaintiffs 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 kistbandy bond for the arrears due on the tenure. Jo 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 tea-1 ant ...
Uttam Chand Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal344,15Ind.Cas.1007
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The petitioner, Uttam Chand, has an extensive business in excise shops, of which lie holds a considerable number in nine districts of this province, including a gania shop at Koilwar, in the district of Arrah. His Koilwar servant, Lakhichand, was convicted, under Section 46 of the Bengal Excise Act (V of 1909), for being in possession of 2 1/2 seers of ganja which lie was attempting to transport from Arrah district to Bindhyachal. Lakhichand confessed his guilt.2. The question now is whether the conviction of the petitioner, the master of Lakhichand, can be supported on the language of Section 56 of the Act. The section is as follows: 'When any offence punishable under Section 46 is committed, by any person in the employ and acting on. behalf of the holder of a license granted, under this Act, such holder shall also be punishable as if he himself had committed, the offence, unless he establishes that all due and reasonable precautions were exercised by hi...
Syed RaziuddIn HussaIn and ors. Vs. Dr. Taharat Hussain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.498
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action in ejectment. The plaintiff and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants were proprietors of a Mouzah Mukhdumpur Kazi Chak. In 1893 a partition of the Mouzah was completed under the Bengal Estates Partition Act, 1878. The result of the partition was that plot No. 82, upon which the dwelling-house of the defendants stands, was allotted to the plaintiff. The partition was completed and possession delivered on the basis thereof on the 6th March 1898. On the 17th September 1908, the plaintiff commenced this action for recovery of possession on the ground that upon completion of partition and delivery of possession, the defendants became trespassers and were not entitled to continue in occupation of their dwelling-house which had fallen into the share allotted to the plaintiff.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the District Judge has made a decree for ejectment. In the present appeal the defendant...
Jyoti Prasad Singh Vs. Lachipur Coal Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal845
Coxe and Teunon, JJ.1. The case for the plaintiff was that the village in suit was a mal village of his zemindari which was held by defendants 5 to 35 as ordinary tenants. They leased it to the defendants 2 to 4, who again leased it to the defendant 1, the Lachipur Coal Company. It was contended that the mineral rights did not belong to the tenants but remained in the plaintiff, and therefore this suit was brought, in which the relief claimed was, generally, that the plaintiff's rights to the minerals, etc., should be declared and that the defendants should be prevented from exercising any such rights. The defence is briefly that the village is a mogoli brahmottar village given to the predecessors of the defendants long before the permanent settlement and that the mineral rights belonged to the brahmottardars. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the plaintiff appeals.2. The two principal points for decision are, first, whether the brahmottardars are at least per...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »