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.
Kedar Nath Samanta Vs. Manu Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.879
Coxe, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the specific performance of a contract to sell certain land and buildings for Rs. 2,500. The contract was executed on the 19th February 1905, by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 1st defendant is the widow of one Madhab Ghose and the 2nd defendant was nampd as executor in a Will said to have been made by Madhab Ghose, of which at the time of the contract the 2nd defendant had obtained Probate. The Probate, however, was subsequently revoked. It is said that on the 1st April the plaintiff paid Rs. 12 to have the document registered and Rs. 20 to a Pleader to identify the 1st defendant. The Sum of Rs. 20, however, was returned and it was said that the document could not be registered on the 1st April hi want of time; and before it could be registered, the 1st defendant on the 3rd April executed a registered conveyance of the property in favour of the 4th defendant, who is the servant and is said to be the benamidar of the 3rd defendant. The Su...
Raghunath Prosad Vs. Kashi Prosad and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.88
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court below has allowed the execution to proceed on the basis of a decree for money made on the 18th August, 1897 against three persons by name Ram Prosad, Thakur Prosad and Roghunath Prosad. Ram Prosad died on the 1st April 1903. An application was made on the 1st September 1910 and was met at once with the objection that no order for execution could be made on the basis thereof under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. The Subordinate Judge has overruled the objection and has held that the case is covered by Sub-section (2) Clause (a) of Section 48. The judgment debtor has now appealed to this Court and on his behalf it has been argued that the view taken by the Sub-ordinate Judge is manifestly erroneous.2. Section 48 provides that where an application to execute a decree, not being a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh applicatio...
Jati Kar Vs. Mukunda Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal227
D. Chatterjee and Teunon, JJ.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for the recovery of possession of a turn of worship in a certain temple for eight days in the month from the 13th to the 20th by virtue of a usufructuary mortgage from the mother and guardian of defendants Nos. 3 and 4, on the allegation that he had been dispossessed of the same by the manager of the defendant No. 2, the Raja of Puri, who is supporting the claim of defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 admits that the grand-father of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 was the original sebak, but says that he had in 1865 made a gift of this turn of worship in favour of his (defendant No. l's) father, and that during his minority plaintiff had been employed as a khatnihar, or paid servant, on his behalf and used to pay him a certain amount of money every year.2. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 did not contest the plaintiff's claim, but both defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did on various grounds. The Court of first instance decreed the suit for recovery...
Lal Gopal Datta Chowdhury Vs. the Khorooriah Majozilla Zemindary Syndi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.675
1. The plaintiffs in these suits are the Khorojoriah Majozillah Syndicate Co. Ld, and the defendants are certain of the proprietors of the Khorooriah Barazillah Zemndiri. The defendant Lal Gopal Dut had a share of one-fourth, Bhupendra of Barazillah, (so-called to distinguish him from Bhupendra of Majozillah), one of the Directors of the plaintiff Company, and Mrinmoyi had one-twelfth, Charu Chandra and Tej Chandra had one-twelfth, andKrishna BinodiniDasi had one-twelfth. Of this last mentioned sharer Jyotis-man and Arindamher are grown-up sons defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in Appeal No. 263, who succeeded to one-twenty-fourth, while the other twenty-fourth fell to her minor sons, Hrishikesh and Sankarkripa, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in the guardianship of their father Jadab in Appeal No 150. It is asserted on behalf of the plaintiff Company, that these defendanst Nos. 1 and 2 covenanted to give them a patni of their interest in the Barazillah, but that they subsequently resied and leased the...
Lalit Chandra Chanda Chowdhury Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal119,15Ind.Cas.65
Caspersz and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a conviction under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), which provides, that--'Any person who unlawfully and maliciously makes or has in his possession or under his control an explosive substance with intent by means thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property in British India, or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in British India, shall, whether any explosion does or does not take place and whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished....'2. The Sessions Judge of Dacca, differing from both the Assessors, has convicted the appellant, Lalit Chandra Chanda Chowdhury, and sentenced him to transportation for ten years. The two co-accused, Jyotindra Chandra Chanda Chowdhury and Harkumar Dhar, were acquitted, under Section 289(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, there being no evidence against them...
Sheonandan Singh Vs. Deo Saran Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.598
S.A. No. 2481 of 19081. The substantial question in controversy between the parties to this appeal relates to the status of the defendent-appellant. The plaintiffs-respondents allege that the defendant is an under-raipat and seek to eject him after service of notice to quit in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act The appellant contends that his status is higher than that of an under-raiyat, arid he is consequently not liable to be ejected.2. It is not disputed that the land in the occupation of the defendant is included in a raiyali holding. The roiynt had executed a mortgage in favour of one Gajadhar Prosad. He had also defaulted to pay rent to his superior landlord, Dawar Hossain, who was the ticcaolar. The result was that, Dawar Hossain sued him for rent, obtained a decree and purchased the holding in execution thereof. Subsequently, the mortgagee sued to enforce his security and joined the purchaser at the sale for arrears of rent as a defendant. T...
Jog NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Badri Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.144
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the defendants in an action commenced by the plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of money alleged to have been paid by them under Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1832, to set aside a sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. It appears that the plaintiffs were mortgagees of the properties in respect of which the landlord obtained a decree for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs sued to enforce their securities and obtained decree on the 29th January 1901 and the 8th February 1904. Meanwhile the mortgagors, now appellants before us, defaulted to pay rent to the superior landlord who obtained a decree against the registered tenant on the 7th December 1901. On the 16th July 1903 and the 11th April 1904, two sums were paid by some of the judgment-debtors towards partial satisfaction of the rent-decree but as the debt was not satisfied in its entirety the landlord decree-holder proceeded to sell the tenure on the 21st December 1904. The pl...
Peary Mohan Das Vs. D. Weston and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.721
Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit to recover damages resulting from an alleged conspiracy.2. The present suit is one of five analogous suits brought against the present defendants arising out of a criminal case which was commonly known as the Midnapore Bomb conspiracy Case. The Emperor v. Santosh Chunder Dass 13 C.W.N. 861 : 9 C.L.J. 663 : 2 Ind. Cas. 681 : 10 Cr.L.J. 125.3. The plaintiff, Peary Mohan Das, is about 68 years of age. He appeared to me to be older. He was formerly in Government service as a Sub-Registrar of deeds--but in the year 1884 his services were dispensed with owing to his having returned to the person presenting the same a deed which was believed to be forged.4. Since the year 1881 the plaintiff has lived in Midnapore where ho appears to be held in respect; and esteem.5. The first defendant, Mr. Donald Weston, is a member of the Indian Civil Service and was formerly District Magistrate and Collector of Midnapore. The second defendant, Moulvi Mazaharul Huq, is a Deputy...
Tripendeswar Mitter Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal84
Holmwood and N.R. Chatterjee, JJ.1. This convection is for re-erecting a building within the building line of a certain road. It appears that before the building line was laid down, the shed consisting of four posts and a tin roof stood in identically the same spot as it does now. After the building line was laid down, the owner had occasion to take the. roof off, and the municipal authorities happened to see this place when there was no roof on the shed. Whether the owner repaired the same bits of tin, or whether he put in new bits of tin, or what he did in renewing or repairing his roof, there is nothing to show. But he eventually put up a roof either made of new tin or repaired, it does not matter which, in identically the same place as the old roof.2. Now, this is certainly not a 're-erection.' It is admitted that Section 3(39)(a) is the only definition which can apply in this is reconstruction of the building if more than one-half of the B cubical contents has been taken down. Now...
Raghunandan Prosad Singh and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.97
1. We are invited in this rule to set aside an order which purports to have been made under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the opposite paraty bought at different times the interest of Jatadhari and Jagdeo Narain in certain estates. Subsequently, Jatadhari filed a rent suit against one Subhago and obtained an ex parte decree. On the 13th April 1907, an application was made to the Court which had tried the suit for sanction to prosecute the partners, except Kuldip, for offences under Sections 209, 210, 193 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. The Munsif refused to grant the sanction on the 24th August 1907. He held in substance that this was an attempt by the petitioners for sanction to have by a cheap method an inquiry into their civil rights. An appeal preferred to the District Judge was dismissed on the 10th January 1908. At the same time, the learned Judge observed that if there was any civil suit or other judicial proceeding in which it transpired that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »