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.
Jadunandan Prosad Singha Vs. Koer Kallyan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.653
1. This appeal is directed against the decree in a suit to enforce a mortgage security executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The second defendant is alleged to have subsequently acquired an interest in the equity of redemption and has been joined as a party in that character. The third and fourth defendants claim to be mortgagees under an instrument, dated the 21st January 1908 : the fifth defendant sets up a mort-gage alleged to have been granted on the 13th January 1903. The sixth defendant holds a mortgage executed on the 14th September 1907, and the seventh defendant sets up a mortgage granted on the 6th January 1908. The date of the mortgage-bond, which the plaintiff seeks to enforce, is the 19th January 1908, but it appears on the face of it to have been altered to the 23rd January 1908. In the Court of first instance, there were two matters substantially in controversy between the parties, namely, first, whether the mortgage of the plaintiff took effect fro...
Mahammad Mehdi Hassan Khan and anr. Vs. Sheoshankar Persad Singh and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.353
Brett, J.1. The entire Mehal Raiputti bearing Towji No. 3143 in the Saran Collectorate was sold for arrears of revenue by the Collector, proceeding under the provisions of Section 14, Act XI of 1859, and was purchased in the name of defendant No. 7, Babu Gopal Das.2. Fifteen separate accounts or Khatas,.besides one for the residuary share, had been opened many years ago by the Collector, and defendant No. 2 being the malik of Khata No. 1 executed three deeds of mortgage in favour of Babu Sheo Shankar Prosad Singh, defendant No. 1 on the 9th December 1886, 13th. December 1888 and 1st July 1893, respectively. Afterwards, the share in respect of which Khata No. 1 had been opened was sold for arrears of revenue due on that share, and purchased by Pardip Narain Singh, defendant No. 6 subject to encumbrances. Defendant No. 1 afterwards brought a suit on the three mortgage-bonds, No. 67 of 1897, against defendants Nos. 2 to 6 and obtained a decree by consent for Rs. 17,281-10.3. On the 25th M...
Jagat Chandra Majumdar Vs. Munsef Ali Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.671
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Sub-Judge, dated the 25th April 1911, amending his decree, and the appeal is directed against the decree prepared in accordance with that amendment.2. The question for determination turns upon Section 66 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. The plaintiff obtained a decree for the arreas of rent accrued due in respect of the years 1312 to 1815 inclusive, and the decree, as originally prepared, enabled him to eject the defendant in default of payment of the entire decretal money within fifteen days. The plaintiff executed his decree and took possession; but, subsequently, the defendant asked for the decree to be amended, and it is conceded that, if the amendment, as allowed, holds good there was money in deposit from which the arrear of rent for one year only might have been satisfied; and, if it had been go satisfied, the plaintiff would not have been able to eject the defendant in terms of Section 66 of the Rent Law.4. It is urged on behalf of t...
Mathura Sahu and anr. Vs. Damri Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.755
Mookerjee, J.1. The Court is invited in this Rule to set aside a sanction granted under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the prosecution of the petitioners, Mathura Sahu and Dwarka Sahu, for offences under Sections 182 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. In the view I propose to take of the matter, it is needless to set, out the facts in full detail. It is sufficient to state that these persons were the plaintiffs in two civil suits, in which, among others, one Pati Rai was a defendant. On or about the 19th December 1910, an application alleged to have been verified by both the plaintiffs, was made on their behalf to the effect that Pati Rai was dead and his heirs had to be brought on the record. It was subsequently intimated to the Court by the defendants that this allegation was false, and Pati Rai was alive. The defendants also applied for sanction to prosecute the plaintiffs on the ground that they had made a false statement in a verified petition and thereby given fals...
Bala Pasban Kuldip Lal Vs. Gurwar Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.111
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of prosecution under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that it has been made without jurisdiction. The circumstances under which the order in question has been made may be briefly recited.2. It appears that, in the course of a rent suit, process was served upon the defendant. The peon learnt subsequently that there had been false personation in connection with the service. He reported the matter to the Court with the result that a fresh summons was issued and served on the real defendant. An application was thereupon made by a stranger to the suit for sanction to prosecute three persons under Section 205, Indian Penal Code. The Court refused the application, mainly, on the ground that sanction ought not to be granted to a person who was not a party to the proceeding and was apparently in no way interested in the matter before the Court. He then appealed to the District Judge under Sub-section (6) of Section 195, Cri...
Mahomed Farid Vs. Mahomed Abdul Gafur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.434
Mookerjee, J.1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is immoveable property originally owned by a Muhammadan lady named Rasulan, who died on the 21st March 1907. The plaintiff-appellant claimed the property by right: of inheritance. The first defendant resisted the claim on the basis of a deed of gift alleged to have been executed by her on the 24th September 1904. He further asserted that the lady subsequently took from him a lease of the disputed property on the 2nd October 1904, to continue during her life-time. In the original Court, as also in the Court of Appeal below, the plaintiff challenged the deed of gift and the lease as fictitious instruments. That case, however, completely failed, with the result that the Courts below concurrently made a decree in favour of the defendant. On the present appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the decision on the ground that, even if the deed of gift be assumed to be genuine, it did not vest good title in t...
Gopal Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. Radharaman Das Babaji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.329
1. The decision of this appeal depends upon the proper construction of the document, Exhibit I, and of the words shishya shishanukrame, that is to say, disciple following after disciple, in that document. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the maker of the endowment intended that one disciple should be succeeded by his own disciple, and not by a brother disciple of the previous shebait. That, however, does not seem to be the proper construction of the document. The words should be construed like the words puttra puttradikrame in other deeds; and, if we do so, it does not matter, so long as one disciple of a shebait succeeds another disciple in the line of the original shebait. In this case Sri-nibash was a disciple of Nobin, and he succeeded Adyaita, another disciple of Nobin. Succession, therefore, was in accordance with the intention of the endowment. This being decided, the findings of the lower Appellate Court upon the questions of fact arising in the case dispose of t...
In Re: Rudolf Stallmann
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal164
Woodroffe, J.1. The petitioner, one Rudolf Stallmann alias Koenig, has been extradited to Germany on a single warrant dated 1st August in respect of two alleged offences of cheating or obtaining money by false pretences. In the first case he is said to have cheated one Von Dippe, and in the second one Rudolph Kiepert. At the conclusion of the extradition proceedings lie submitted a written statement under Section 3(6) of the Indian Extradition (Act XV of 1903). The Government however refused to refer the points of law raised by him to the High Court. Being In custody under the extradition warrant in Calcutta, he accordingly applied for an order in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of such custody and of the warrant which was said to justify it.2. The Advocate-Genera I has objected that we have no jurisdiction to interfere. Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, however, enacts that the Presidency High Courts may, amongst other things, direct that a person ...
Chhakauri Mahton Vs. Ganga Prasad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal862
Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court below has refused an application for execution of a decree for money. The circumstances under which the order in question was made have not formed the subject of controversy in this Court. On the 23rd March 1908, the appellants before us obtained a decree for money against one Shankar Lall and various other persons as defendants. On appeal to this Court by Shankar Lall and some' of the other defendants, the decree was confirmed on the 27th May 1910. On the 5th August following, the decree-holders made an application for execution of the decree, whereupon an order was made for issue of a writ of attachment of the immovable properties of the judgment-debtors. On the 22nd September the return of the service of the writ of attachment was filed, but it is disputed whether the return gave an accurate version of the facts, and whether the writ was, as a matter of fact, properly served. Shankar Lall, however, entered a...
Ganga Pershad Sahu and anr. Vs. Irshad Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.959
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal is a share of four villages Padnia, Monaia, Chaduor and Dhndhwa. The case for the plaintiffs is that the lands of these villages appertain to five taluks or mohals, Khaira, Aramgarh, Maiiechuck, Kendil and Tar wan, and that one-third or five annas four pies of the four villages appertains to taluka Khaira. The plaintiffs further assert that this share in Khaira was owned by two brothers. Jehangir Buksh and Nabi Buksh in equal halves and that they acquired a valid title to the moiety share of Jehangir Buksh, on the 26th February 1898. On the 5th December 1898, the plaintiffs had their names registered with respect to the share acquired by them. On the 5th March 1899, they applied, apparently under Section 70 of the Land Registration Act, to have a separate account opened in respect of their share. This application was granted. Subsequently on the 30th May 1904, the residuary share called the ejmali kalam, was so...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »