Kolkata Court August 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.
Lal Mohan Thakur and anr. Vs. Nanda Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.461
1. This appeal is directed against a decree by which the District Judge, in reversal of the decree of the Court of first instance, has dismissed a suit for contribution. The plaintiffs and the second and third defendants are the joint proprietors of the residuary share of an estate Sahia, which bears No. 1211 on the Revenue Roll of the Collector of Shahabad. This residuary share comprises several villages and the aggregate Government revenue payable in respect thereof is Rs. 564-10-6 annually, together with Road and Public Works Cesses to the extent of Rs. 76-5-0. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made default in the payment of revenue and cesses, with the result that they were driven to pay the same so as to save the property from inevitable sale. They now seek contribution from the defendants. The substantial question in controversy between the parties upon which the two Courts below have differed, relates to the principle upon which the respective liability of the parties is...
Pran Singh and ors. Vs. Janardan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.337
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court below has dismissed an application of the judgment-debtor to set aside a sale of six properties in execution of a mortgage-decree. The decree was made by this Court on the 2nd December 1908, in affirmance of the decree of the original Court, dated the 29th June 1907. The first application for execution was made on the 28th March 1908, on the basis of the decree of the Court of first instance, even before it had been confirmed by this Court. That application was dismissed for default on the 15th September 1908. The second application was presented on the 6th February 1909. The sale was proclaimed and for five of the properties the decree-holder was the highest bidder at the sale which took place from the 15th to the 18th March 1909. Before the sale could be completed, however, the decree-holder withdrew on the ground recorded in the bid-sheet and signed by his Pleader that 'the decree-holder does not want to get the properti...
Gokul Krishna Das and ors. Vs. Shashi Mukhi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.23
1. This appeal is directed against the preliminary decree in a suit for dissolution of a partnership-business, for adjustment of accounts, and for incidental reliefs. The claim of the plaintiff related to four firms, in respect of which she alleged that her husband, and after his death, she herself was partner with the defendants. In the original Court, the suit was dismissed on the ground that all the partners had not been joined as defendants. The District Judge, on appeal, reversed that decision, and gave the plaintiff an opportunity for the proper constitution of the suit. Upon remand, the Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for dissolution and gave directions as to the mode in which the business was to be dissolved and account taken. Upon appeal, the learned District Judge has affirmed this decision with two important variations, namely, first, that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for dissolution in respect of one of the firms only from the in...
Afazuddi Khan Vs. Prasanna Gain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal138
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The only question that arises for decision in this case is whether the position of the plaintiffs was that of tenants whose rights may be classed as ' protected interests ' within the meaning of Section 159 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs held under a sub-lease granted by Ganesh Chandra Chatterjee and others, who held under a permanent lease granted by Brojendra Kumar Sen, Brojendra Kumar Sen again holding under a permanent lease granted by Prasanna Kumar Mitra and others. It is contended' that the lease given by Prasanna Kumar Mitra and others to' Brojendra Kumar Sen authorized Brojendra Kumar to grant-sub-leases, and as the sub-lease granted by Ganesh. Chatterjee and brothers was a sub-lease, and as it was B therefore within the authority granted by the lease given to Brojendra Kumar Sen, it was a 'protected interest' within Clause (g) of that section. The words of the lease are that the lessee Brojendra Kumar Sen was to enjoy the property by making proj...
Afazuddi Khan Vs. Prasanna GaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.991
D. Chatterjea, J.1. The only question that arises for decision in this case is, whether the position of the plaintiffs was that of tenants whose rights may be classed as protected interests' within the meaning of Section 159 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs held under a sub-lease granted by Ganesh Chandara Chatterjee and others, who held under a permanent lease granted by Brojendra Kumar Sen, Brojendra Kumar Sen again holding under a permanent lease granted by Prasanna Kumar Mitra and others. It is contended that the lease given by Prasanna Kumar Mitra and others to Brojendra Kumar Ben authorized Brojendra Kumar to grant sub-leases, and as the sub lease granted by Ganesh Chetterjee and brothers was a sub-lease, and as it was, therefore, within the authority granted by the lease given to Brojendra Kumar San, it was a 'protected interest' within Clause (g) of that section. The wards of the lease are that the lessee Brojendra Kumar Sen was to enjoy the property by making projabil...
Chowdhury Mohadeo Pershad Vs. Sheikh Pachkari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.941
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action in ejectment, The subject-matter of the litigation is an occupancy holding in respect of which the second defendant, was the tenant under the plaintiff. On the 13th May 1905, the second defendant executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the first, defendant under the terms whereof the mortgagor was entitled, if he so chose, to remain in possession of the homestead upon payment of a nominal rent. The case for the plaintiff is that upon the execution of the usufructuary mortgage, the second defendant abandoned the holding and the first defendant came into occupation as mortgagee. The plaintiff, therefore, contends that he is entitled to a decree for ejectment against both, against the first defendant, because he is a trespasser in possession, and against the second, because he has severed his connection with the holding. The Court of first instance accepted this contention as well founded and made a decree for ejectment ag...
Upendra Nath Ghosh and anr. Vs. the Chairman of the Calcutta Corporati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.332
Lawrence Juenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Vincent affirming the decree of the lower Appellate Court, with the result that the plaintiff's suit stands dismissed.2. Two objections were taken before us on behalf of the plaintiff; first, it was said that there was improper reception of evidence inasmuch as the map prepared by Mr. Billon was admitted. But, in our opinion, that map was admissible, if not under Section 83, still under Section 13 of the Evidence Act. The value to be attributed to it, when admitted, was a matter to be determined by the Court of fact: so that had matters rested there, we should not have interfered with the decree of the lower Appellate Court. But there is an incident in the case which certainly calls for interference on the part of this Court, and it is this: The plaintiffs were desirous of establishing their possession of the land in suit and it was obviously most material for them to be able to prove that possession. For the pu...
Maharaja Rameswar Singh Vs. Tirpit Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.140
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court of appeal below, in reversal of the order of the original Court, has refused an application for execution of a decree as barred by limitation under Article 6 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The decree was for rent, for a sum less than Rs. 500, and was made on the 23rd May 1904. The first application for execution was made on the 7th October 1904, and was dismissed for default on the 9th Marchl905. The judgment-debtor had, in fact, on the 3rd October 1904 applied for amendment of the decree. This application was heard ex parte and allowed on the 25th February 1905. The result was that the decree as originally drawn up was materially altered. On the 26th August 1905, the decree-holder, not aware, that the decree had been varied in this manner without notice to him, made the second application for execution of the original decree. The judgment-debtor forthwith objected that the decree whereof execution was sought ha...
In Re: Munshi Rudra Prosad Muktear
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.397
1. This is a Rule issued by this Court under Section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act, calling upon one Rudra Prosad, a mukeor practising at Muzafferpore, to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed. Rudra Prosad was examined as a witness at the instance of the Court in a Probate case. In the course of his deposition he stated that he had attested the Will of which Probate was sought, four days after the death of the testator. According to him the testator died on the 5th December 1910, and immediately afterwards he was pressed by persons interested in establishing the Will, to put his name down as an attesting witness. He admits that he was not present at the time of the execution of the Will nor had he obtained from the testator an acknowledgment of his signature. In the affidavit which has been placed before us in this Court he admits that when it was first suggested to him that he should put his name down as that of an attesting witness he took time to consider the m...
Bhagabati Koer Vs. Sohodra Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.691
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court of Appeal below, in concurrence with the Court of first instance, has allowed execution to proceed on the basis of a decree for money obtained by one Sohodra Koer, now respondent before us, against Bhagabati Koer, on the 22nd December 1906. Bhagabati Koer was sued as the legal representative of her mother Bechu Koer and the decree directed that the judgment-debt be recovered from the assets of Bechu Koer in the hands of Bhagabati Koer, In execution of this decree, two properties have been attached, namely, first, a howdah, or a seat on an elephant, and secondly, rent duo to Bechu Koer from the tenants of properties which she took by inheritance from her husband Gudar Sahai. Bhagabati Koer contends that these properties are not the assets of the estate of her mother in her hands and are not liable to be attached in execution of the decree. The Courts below have overruled this contention and allowed execution to proceed. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »