Kolkata Court August 1911 Judgments
Sukan Sahu Vs. Musammat Gangajali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.136
1. This appeal is directed against a decree in a suit for recovery of arrears a maintenance by a Hindu lady against her father-in-law. It is not disputed that the husband of the plaintiff died about the year 1881, while he was a member of a joint Mitakshara family composed of his father, himself, his brothers and his grandfather. After the death of her husband, the plaintiff continued to live au a member of the family of her father-in-law. But about the year 1903 disputes broke out by reason of the third marriage of her father-in-law and the introduction of the newly wedded wife into the family circle. The result was, that she was compelled to seek the protection of her brothers. She now claims in the present suit maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25 a month. The Courts below have made a decree in her favour at the rate of Rs. 16 a month and directed that the maintenance should be a charge upon the family property in the hands of the defendant. The learned Vakil for the defendant-appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Subhadra Koer and ors. Vs. Dhajadhari Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.380
1. We are invited to set aside two orders made by the Court below on the 11th and the 12th July 1911, under somewhat exceptional circumstances. The first of these orders purports to have been made under Section 45, Sub-section (1), Clause 4(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; and the second under Section 43, Sub-section (4) of the same statute read with Order XXXIX, Rule 2, Sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. It appears that the petitioners before us were appointed guardians of the person of their step-daughter, Bachhi Sahdei, and at the time the order was made, it was directed that the minor should not be married without the consent of her maternal grandfather and without the leave of the Court. The appellants, it is admitted, have got the girl married in violation of this direction. The learned Judge, when apprised of this event, called upon the appellants to produce the minor in Court. That order, however, could not be carried out, because at the time the order...
Tag this Judgment!Moharaja Ram NaraIn Singh Vs. Odindra Nath Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.440
Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the preliminary decree in a suit for recovery of money. The circumstances under which the suit was commenced by the plaintiffs-respondents have not formed the subject of controversy in this Court. On the 14th April, 1896, Jadu Nath Mukerjee, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, advanced to the defendant by way of loan a sum of one lac and thirty thousand rupees, to bear interest at the rate of seven and a half per cent, per annum. The loan was intended to be secured by a mortgage, the mortgagee to be placed in possession of various properties of the defendant, and to apply the profits thereof in satisfaction of his dues A usufructuary mortgage-deed was drawn up and executed by the defendant; but for reasons about which we need not speculate, the instrument was not duly attested by two witnesses. The document was registered on the 10th June 1896, and the creditor took possession of the properties mentioned therein. He continued in possession...
Tag this Judgment!Subhadra Koer and ors. Vs. Dhajadhari GossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.898
1. This appeal and Rule are directed against a series of orders under the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890, the validity whereof is assailed on the ground that they were made by the Court below wholly without jurisdiction.2. It appears that one Dibakar Bhatta, a wealthy Hindu governed by the Mitakshara law, left a daughter, Bachhi Sahdei. The mother of this girl, Bunda Koer, who was the fourth wife of Dibakar Bhatta, had predeceased her husband; but her three co-wives Subhadra Koer, Ram Koer and Mahesha Koer, who are the petitioners and appellants before us, survived him. The case for these three ladies is that one Ramadin Ohowdhury, a man of considerable wealth, who is the opposite party in the Rule and respondent in the appeal, was anxious to secure the marriage of his own son with Bachhi, so that ultimately the estate of Dibakar Bhatta might pass into the hands of the representatives of his own family. The petitioners assert that Dhajadhari, the maternal grandfather of Bachhi, was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Bibi Imambandi and ors. Vs. Matasuddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.678
1. This appeal is directed against a decree in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable properties which admittedly belonged at one time to a Muhammadan gentleman by name Mahammad Ismail Ali Khan who died on the 21st March 1903. The case for the plaintiffs-respondents is that Ismail Ali Khan left three wives and children by each of them and that on the 10th June 1906 they obtained a conveyance from the fourth wife of the share which had vested in her and her infant children. The plaintiffs farther allege that on the 17th June 1903 they applied for the registration of their names, in the office of the Collector, in respect of the share purchased by them but the application was opposed by the second and third wives and dismissed on the 21st May 1907. The order of dismissal was confirmed on appeal on the 12th August 1907. The Revenue Authorities found in substance that the lady alleged by the plaintiffs to be the youngest wife of Ismail Ali Khan was never lawfully married to him an...
Tag this Judgment!Deb NaraIn Dutt Vs. Chairman of the Baruipur Municipalty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal141
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. In my opinion the judgment of the District Judge cannot be accepted, and as a result we are unable to confirm his decree, though Mr. Justice Doss was in agreement with it. The question that arises is one of considerable importance to the plaintiff, who has brought this suit for a declaration that the Baruipur Municipal assessment of 1906-07 is illegal and arbitrary and as such not binding on him. Now, that assessment purported to be under Section 85 of the Bengal Municipal Act of 1884, which provides that ' the Commissioners may, from time to time, at a meeting convened expressly for the purpose, of which due notice shall have been given, and with the sanction of the Local Government impose within the limits of the municipality,....(a) A tax upon persons occupying holdings within the municipality according to their circumstances and property within the municipality.2. The Munsif in a very careful judgment came to the conclusion that the plaintiff w...
Tag this Judgment!imrit Chamar Vs. Sridhar Panday and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.120
1. This appeal is directed against a decree of dismissal in a suit for redemption of an alleged usufructuary mortgage. The defendants deny the title of the plaintiff and their contention has found favour with the Courts below. Upon the present appeal, the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed on behalf of the plaintiff, on three grounds; namely, first, that a certified copy of a perpetual lease dated the 21st December 1874 was improperly rejected by the Court of first instance; secondly, that the first mortgage deed was improperly excluded from evidence upon a misapprehension of the legal effect of the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act; and, thirdly, that the Court of first instance ought not to have received in evidence a road-cess return produced by the defendants as evidence in their favour, because it does not show the name of the predecessor of the plaintiff as a tenant of the disputed property.2. In so far as the first of the grounds is concerned, it...
Tag this Judgment!Koilash Chandra Santra and ors. Vs. Gajendra Nath Misra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.407
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The case has been placed before us very clearly by Mr. Majumdar, but I am unable to see that we are entitled to interfere in second appeal. It cannot be said, and is not said, that the decree is no evidence of title. It proved possession, and possession is evidence of title. The value to be attributed to it is a matter to be determined by the lower Appellate Court which is the final Court of fact. I think the matter has been correctly formulated by Mr. Justice Doss, and that we must dismiss the appeal with costs.D. Chatterjee, J.2. I agree....
Tag this Judgment!Langat Singh Vs. Janki Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal265
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. We are invited in this Rule, to set aside an order by which the Court below has amended a decree made on the 14th December, 1901. The order of the Subordinate Judge is assailed on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction, inasmuch as two previous applications, similar in scope and character to the present, had been refused. The circumstances under which the order in question has been made may be briefly recited. In 1899, Babu Shyam Sivendra Shahi, husband of the sister of Maharajah Harendra Kishore Singh of Bettia, commenced an action against Maharani Janki Koer for recovery of jewelleries and other valuable articles, alleged to be the property of his deceased wife. The matters in controversy in the suit were referred to two arbitrators, Mr. Hall and Babu Jagneshwar Prasad Singh. The arbitrators were not unanimous, and gave divergent awards on the 13th and 11th July, 1901. The matter was thereupon referred, in terms of the submission, to Mr. Grouse...
Tag this Judgment!Midnapore Zemindari Company Ld. Vs. Naresh NaraIn Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal220
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is an appeal, by the judgment-debtors, from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye holding that they are bound, by the final decree of this Court, to pay mesne profits to the decree-holders for the respective periods during which they were, admittedly, in possession of the land in suit. That decree, dated the 13th December, 1906, awarded possession and mesne profits against Messrs. Robert Watson & Co. Ld. The litigation having commenced in the year 1899, the judgment-debtors, successively, purchased the property pendente lite, on the 29th November, 1902, and the 3rd December, 1906--though possession had been taken, in the latter case, on the 1st January, 1906. They did not apply to have their names added as defendants in the pending suit. On the 3rd April 1909, the decree-holders put in a petition for execution of their decree. They mentioned, in the ninth column of the application, the names of Messrs. Kobert Watson & Co. Ld. Mr. C.B. Gregso...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »