Kolkata Court February 1912 Judgments

Ramji Das Vs. Janki Das

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal802

Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on a contract No. 3525 of the 6th of November 1907 for the sale by the defendants of a lac of gunny-bags of the sort described in the sold-note. The terms of the contract are set out in the sold-note, and it there appears, among other things, that the price was Rs. 30-4 per 100 bags free alongside, and that delivery of the goods was to be given and taken 20,080 monthly, from December 1907 to April 1908. That contract is signed by the plaintiffs as brokers; it purports to be addressed to the principals. The instalments of December and January were settled, and no question arises regarding them, except as to brokerage, as to which nothing has been said before us. The February instalment was not delivered; and according to the plaint, damage to the extent of Rs. 972-14-3 was thereby sustained by the plaintiffs and became due to them. The total sum claimed in this suit is thus Rs. 1,031-9. The case was instituted...

Maindi Sardar and anr. Vs. Akoor Chandra Ghosh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.92

1. In support of this appeal, the only argument, which has been advanced on behalf of the appellants, is that the lower Courts erred in law in not holding that the suit was barred by limitation. It has first been contended that the lower Courts should have held that the suit was barred under the provisions of Article 120 of Schedule II of the old Limitation Act (XV of 1877). In this case, an order was passed in favour of the present appellants under Section 333, Code of Civil Procedure, on the 7th August 1897 and the present suit was instituted on the 16th December 1905. It is contended that the suit was barred under the provisions of Article 120 of the Limitation Act because it was not brought within six years from the date of the order passed under Section 332, Code of Civil Procedure. In our opinion, this contention cannot prevail. The suit which has bean brought by the plaintiffs is a suit for possession of immoveable property after establishment of title and for such a suit limita...

Baroda Prasad Burman and ors. Vs. Prosonna Kumar Das and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.152

1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to eject the defendants from a piece of homestead land measuring 21/2 haras after service of notice to quit. The Court of first instance found that the notice had been duly served but that it was bad in law, and it further held that the tenancy was a permanent one and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to get a decree for ejectment but were only entitled to a decree for rent. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court has found that the notice to quit was duly served and that the notice was valid in law, and on these points, no argument has been addressed to us at the hearing of this appeal, The lower Appellate Court has farther found that, as the land was let out for the building of a dwelling house on it, it must be presumed that the tenancy was a permanent one. On these findings, the Subordinate Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree of the first Court and has dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiffs have appe...

Ramji Das and ors. Vs. Janki Das and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.973

Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on a Contract No. 3525 of the 6th of November 1907 for the sale by the defendants of a lac of gunny-bags of the sort described in the sold-note. The terms of the contract are set out in the sold-note, and it there appears, among other things, that the price was Rs. 30-4 per 100 bags free alongside, and that delivery of the goods was to be given and taken 20,000 monthly, from December 1907 to April 1903. That contract is signed by the plaintiffs as brokers; it purports to be addressed to the principals. The instalments of December and January were settled, and no question arises regarding them, except as to brokerage, as to which nothing has been said before us. The February instalment was not delivered; and according to the plaint, damage to the extent of Rs. 972 14-3 was thereby sustained by the plaintiffs and became due to them. The total sum claimed in this suit is thus Rs. 1,031-9. The case was instituted in the Pres...

Surendra Mohini Debi Vs. Amaresh Chandra Chatterjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal687

Cecil Brett and Carnduff, JJ.1. A suit was brought by Shib Coomari Debi, who is described in the present Rule as the opposite party No. 21, against other persons, who are also parties to this Rule, or against their previous representatives-in-interest for the recovery of the rent of a certain dur-putni. Shib Coomari Debi obtained an ex parte decree, and the dur-putni was sold in satisfaction of that decree on the 12th June 1907, and purchased by the petitioner in this Rule, Surendra Mohini Debi who, from her description, appears to be the wife of the opposite party No. 7, Jnanendra Nath Chattopadhyaya. On the 31st July 1907 an application was made, under Section 311 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, by Debendra Nath Chattopadhyaya, opposite party No. 13, and on the same date three other judgment-debtors, namely, opposite parties Nos. 1, 14 and 17, filed a similar application. The three last-mentioned persons also filed an application under Section 108 of the old Code to have the ex p...

Surendra Mohini Debi Vs. Loharam Chattopadhya and anr.

Court: Kolkata

1. A suit was brought by Shib Kumari Debi, who is described in the present Rule as opposite party No. 21, against other persons who are also parties to this Rule or against their previous representatives-in-interest, for the recovery of the rent of a certain dur patni. She obtained a decree and the dur patni was sold in satisfaction of that decree on the 12th June 1907 and was purchased by the petitioner in this Rule, Surendra Mohini Debi, who from her description appears to be the wife of the opposite party No. 7, Jnanendra Nath Chat-topadhya. On the 31st August 1907, an application was made under Section 311 of the old Code of Civil Procedure by Debendra Nath Chattopadhya, opposite party No. 13, and, on the same date, three other judgment-debtors, namely, opposite parties Nos. 1, 14 and 17, filed a similar application. The three last mentioned persons also filed an application under Section 103 of the old Code to have the ex parte decree set aside. On the 4th January 1908, the applic...

Raj Mohan Pal and ors. Vs. Gobinda Chandra Pal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.53

1. This is an appeal against an appellate order confirming an order of refusal to set aside a sale in execution on the ground of material irregularity and fraud.2. It is objected in limine that such an appeal is incompetent now, and we think that the objection must prevail.3. It cannot be, nor is it contended, that under the Code of 1808, which came into force on the 1st January 1909, a second appeal lies in a case of this kind. It was otherwise, no doubt, when sales were attacked on the ground of fraud under the Code of 1882; but Order XXI, Rule 90 of the present Code has placed fraud and material irregularity on the same footing in this connection, and a reference to Order XXI, Rule 92, Order XLIII, Rule 1 (j), and Section 104(2) places it beyond controversy that one appeal and one only, is now given.4. But it is argued that, as the sale with which we are here concerned, was held on the 14th November 1908, and the application to set it aside was made on the 12th December following, b...

Dasarathi Panda Vs. Satyabadi Ganutia and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.50

D. Chatterjee, J.1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Article 14 of the Second Schedule of the Limitation Act (Act XV of 1877). That Article is intended for suits for setting aside any act or order of a Government Officer in his official capacity and the period of limitation is one year from the date of the act or order. The present suit is under Section 83 of the Central Provinces Land Bevenue Act of 1881, which provides for suits for the setting aside of certain decisions or for the cancellation or amendment of certain entries. The present suit was for the cancellation or amendment of certain entries made in the record-of rights, The suit, therefore, is not for setting aside any order of a Government Officer. The question, therefore, left for decision is whether the suit is for the setting aside of an act of a Gevernment Officer.2. Now a Bevenue Officer is, no doubt, a Government Officer who can be said to act when he makes...

In Re: R.C. Sen

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal598

Fletcher, J.1. This is a rule granted under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, calling upon Mr. S.L. Maddox, Chairman of the Calcutta Corporation, to show cause why he should not prepare and publish; a revised list of voters for Ward No. 13 of the Municipal town of Calcutta under Schedule IV of the Calcutta Municipal Act by rejecting the claims, objections and applications filed by Mr. I.J. Cohen, Commissioner of the said Ward No. 13, on the 2nd day of January 1912, and by giving effect to the claims, objections and applications filed by Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sen, as if the said claims, objections and applications filed by the said Mr. I.J. Cohen were not filed at all, and why he should not pay the costs of and incidental to this 1 application.2. Now, the rules for preparation and publication are contained in Schedule IV of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1899, and by Rule 2 of that Schedule it is provided that on or before the 1st day of December 1908, and thereafter on or before the 1st...

Jang Rai and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.649

1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Shahabad who, differing with the assessors convicted four persons, Jang Rai, Keshwar, Singh or Rai, Ram Narain and Anjor Ahir under Sections 148, 395 and 326 read with Section 149 and sentenced the first to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, the others to seven years each.2. Originally eight persons were arraigned before him on these charges but four have been acquitted, though we confess we are unable to appreciate any difference between their cases and those of the present appellants.3. It is alleged that 200 of the tenants of Barsingha, a village in the Ballia District, crossed the Ganges on the day of occurrence and looted the fields of the Suremanpur Burja tenants. It is also alleged that one Barhamdeo Rai (not in custody) pursued one Chegan and speared him, killing him instantaneously. Then it is said that Sheo Gobind, who has been tried and acquitted on his establishing a convincing alibi, pursued...