Kolkata Court January 1912 Judgments
Chandra Kumar Dhar Vs. Ram DIn Poodar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.702
1. This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a mortgage-decree passed on the 19th of December 1901 and made absolute for sale on the 4th September 1906. This first application for execution was made on the 13th of December 1906, for a sum of Rs. 231 odd annas taking the interest as Rs. 12 only, whereas it was in reality Rs. 661 plus Rs. 12. On the 7th of March 1907, the appellant, defendant No. 4, who was one of the purchasers of the mortgaged properties (from the mortgagor defendant No. 1), made an application that the decree-holder had claimed Rs. 231 and annas 15 including coats; that this amount could be realized by the sale of property-No. 11 alone, and, in any case, that he was prepared to deposit any part of the claim not satisfied by the sale, or the whole of the claim. On the 9th March, the decree-holder, who was under the impression that his claim of Rs. 231 was in accordance with the decree as passed and that the decree must be amended, withdrew the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Chandra Ghose Vs. Behari Lal Mookerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.686
Coxe, J.1. The facts of the case, according to the judgments of the Courts below, seem to be that in December the defendant No. 2 agreed to sell the property in gait to the defendant No. 1 and pat him in possession of it. He did not, however, sell the property to him. Two months later, he executed a conveyance in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff at that time being well aware of the contract with the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff sued for recovery of possession and the learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff's conveyance was not a valid document and that the plaintiff had not acquired any valid right to the property on the strength of it.2. I find it very difficult to understand precisely what the learned Subordinate Judge thought that the nature of the transaction in favour of the plaintiff really was. He apparently accepted the fact that the sum of Rs. 75 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2, but he said this was not the consideration-money for the docume...
Tag this Judgment!Preonath Roy Vs. Nibaran Chandra Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.870
1. In our opinion, the order of dismissal of the insolvent's petition for adjudication must be reversed. The power to dismiss is under Section 15 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and the Judge in his judgment does not indicate any of the grounds there set forth as that on which he purports to act, nor is it made to appeal? before us that there was any ground on which we can properly uphold the judgment. In fact, if, as the creditor maintains, there are considerable assets, it would be most disadvantageous to the general body of creditors that there should not be an adjudication. The adjudication ensures the distribution of the assets, if there are any, according to the equitable arrangement for which provision is made in the Act.2. We must, therefore, allow this appeal and make an order of adjudication.3. The respondent must pay the costs of this appeal, hearing fee one gold mohur.4. The case will now be remitted to the lower Court and the proceedings in insolvency will be continued a...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan Purohit Vs. Sikdar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.10
Coxe, J.1. This was a suit for, recovery of possession of certain lands on the allegation that they belonged to a certain taluk which had been purchased in the name of the plaintiffs in a revenue sale. There was also a prayer in the plaint, in the alternative, for the recovery of rent. The Courts below found that the plaintiff was a benamdar and was not entitled to bring this suit.2. The plaintiff appeals.3. It has been argued that the findings of the Courts below on the subject of benami are not sufficient to warrant the decision that the plaintiff was the banamdar. This, however, is an inference of fact with which I could not in any case interfere in second appeal and I may say, though perhaps it is somewhat beyond the scope of my authority, that, on reading the reasoning of (he Munsif on the point which was accepted by the learned. District Judge on appeal, there cannot be much doubt that this matter was rightly decided.4. It is next argued that this question of benami does not aris...
Tag this Judgment!Chag Mull and anr. Vs. Jai NaraIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.605
Stephen, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling dated the 10th of March 1910, made under Section b7 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, setting aside a transfer of his house and shop made by the second respdonent Nazir Khan to the appellants Chag Mull and Suraj Mull.2. The facts of the case, so far as we need consider them, are as follows: On the 17th November 1908 the respondent transferred the premises in question to the appellants in order to avoid execution proceedings in a suit brought by then. Six or ten days later, it does not matter which, the respondent filed his petition in Insolvency. This he did under the Insolvency Section of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, as Darjeeling is a Scheduled District under the Insolvency Act, which was not then in force there. The present Civil Procedure Code was applied to Darjeeling on the 5fch January 1909, and the Provincial Insolvency Act on the 25th January 1909. The respondent was adjudged an i...
Tag this Judgment!Baij Nath Mistry and ors. Vs. Raja Jang Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.657
Stephen, J.1. This suit is brought on a promissory-note executed in favour of the plaintiff by the second defendant, who was then the Dewan of the father of the first defendant. The consideration for the note was an advance of money to the second defendant to enable him to pay road-cess on behalf of the first defendant. In the Munsif's Court it was held that the second defendant had an implied authority from the father of the first defendant to raise the money, and that his action had been ratified by the first defendant. The suit was accordingly decreed against the first defendant. On appeal to the Judicial Commissioner this decree was set aside on the findings that the second defendant had no authority to borrow money on behalf of the first defendant and that the acts necessary to constitute a ratification of the second defendant's action by the first did not occur. A Rule has been issued calling on defendant No. 1 to show cause why this order should not be set aside. The question wh...
Tag this Judgment!Karim Khan Vs. Salamuddi and anr. and Jelakha Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.594
Coxe, J.1. I am concerned in this appeal with the interests of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. When they were minors, the defendant No. 2 was their certified guardian and she sold the property in suit, to the defendant No. 1 without the permission of the District Judge. The defendant No. 2 is the mother of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendant No. 1 is the brother of their father. The plaintiffs have now sued to have this sale set aside and for recovery of possession, and this has been decreed by the lower Appellate Court.2. The defendant No. 1 appeals. On his behalf it has been argued that the sale benefited the minors and was a perfectly honest transaction and that the Court should have held that it was binding on them.3. It is perfectly clear, however, that the sale contravened the provisions of Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and is, therefore, voidable under Section 30. The terms of the Section are perfectly simple and must necessarily be observed by the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Sri Ghoshal and ors. Vs. Kartik Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.596
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to eject the defendants from a piece of land in Kidderpore on the ground that they are monthly tenants to whom due notice to quit has been given. The lower Appellate Court, reversing the decree of the Court of first instance, has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs holding that the defendants have a permanent tenancy.2. From this decree the plaintiffs have appealed. It cannot be said in the light of the decided cases that there are no materials to justify the lower Appellate Court's view; but it has to be borne in mind that the conclusion rests not on direct proof but on presumption.3. The presumption in favour of a permanent tenancy implies that there is ground for inferring that the tenure was always intended to be and always was hereditary, or that it acquired that character by subsequent grant. But a presumption in favour of a transaction assumes its regularity: it cannot be made in favour of that which offends ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Salimullah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal487
Woodroffe, J.1. Learned Counsel for the accused, before the charge was read, contended, first, that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the case, and, secondly, that if it had, the Penal Code and not the English law was the substantive law applicable. The first contention is based on the fact that after the offence, the ship touched at the ports of Perim, Aden and Tuticorin. Assuming, for the sake of argument, though I do not consider the point, that the accused might have been tried at any of those places, Section 681 of the Merchant Shipping Act (57 and 58 Vict., c. 60) provides for jurisdiction in any place in which the offender, or person complained against, may be. The accused is now here, however he may have come here (though it is to be noted that this port was that of the destination of the ship); and I hold, therefore, that this Court has jurisdiction to try him.2. Learned Counsel's argument on the second contention assumes that the question he now raises could not have aris...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Salimulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.598
Woodroffe, J.1. Learned Counsel for the accused, before the charge was read, contended, firstly, that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the case, and, secondly, that if it had, the Penal Code and not the English law was the substantive law applicable. The first contention is based on the fact that after the offence, the ship touched at the ports of Perim, Aden and Tuticorin. Assuming for the sake of argument, (though I do not consider the point), that the accused might have been tried at any of those places, Section 684 of the Merchant Shipping Act (57 and 58 Vict., C. 60) provides for jurisdiction in any place in which the offender or person complained against, may be. The accused is now here, however he may have come here, (though it is to be noted that this port was that of the destination of the ship) and I hold, therefore, that this Court has jurisdiction to try him. Learned Counsel's argument on the second contention assumes that the question he now raises could not have aris...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »