Kolkata Court February 1912 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.
Abdul Karim Abu Ahmad Khan Ghaznavi and anr. Vs. Abdus Subhan Chowdhur ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.51
1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order made under Order XI, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code, should not be set aside on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction. The suit in which it was made is one for accounts and for other reliefs, brought by certain parties against the mutwallis of a mosque. The order which has been made substantially is that the defendants should produce certain accounts, that is to say, certain documents, containing the accounts of the mosque for a certain period. It was objected, in the first place, that this order should not be made at the present stage of the proceedings because it still remained to be decided in the case whether the' present plaintiffs were persons who were entitled to bring this action and whether the endowment is dedicated as a public or a private one. This matter has been dealt with on a preliminary question, namely, whether a Receiver should be appointed or not and in the decision of that matte...
Gul Mahomed Vs. Abdul Jubbar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.694a
1. In this case the appellant tiled an appeal in the Court below on the 2nd of February 1910 and at the same time he deposited the talabana. On the 2nd March 1910, the case came on for hearing and notice was not filed and the appeal was dismissed. This presumably was a notice which the appellant was required to file by the Circular Orders in the Court in order that processes might be issued. The dismissal of the appeal, apparently, was under Order XLI, Rule 18, Civil Procedure Code, which does not apply to the present case as the talabana had been deposited. The result is that the dismissal of the appeal on the 2nd Mar oil was wrong; consequently, when the matter came up on an application for re-admission, on the 18th March, re-admission ought to have been allowed. It was in fact refused on the ground that notice had not been filed, though that was perhaps through the fault of the party. We cannot hold that the Judge in this matter exercised his discretion rightly, but as the order of ...
Atal Bajadar Vs. Madan Dai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.694
1. It has been determined by the lower Court that the plaintiff is entitled to a Mannas share in the property, but that he is not entitled to khas possession of the land even to the extent of this share. The mere fact that there are tenants on the land, who have been settled there by the other co-sharers, is not itself a sufficient answer to the claim for joint khas possession, unless in addition rights have been acquired which would constitute a complete defence, as, for instance, the acquisition of an occupancy-right. In the circumstances, we think that it would be better that the plaintiffs right to joint, khas possession should be determined in this suit, We must, therefore, reverse the decree and send back the case to the lower Appellate Court for re-consideration and in as doing, we would draw attention to those cases of which Hulodhur Sen v. Gooroodass Roy 20 W.R. 126; Naranbhai Vaghjibhai v. Ranchod Premchand 26 B. 141 may be cited as instances.2. It will be open to the defenda...
Nanda Lal Marwari Vs. Rampal Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.1
1. These appeals arise out of as many applications for execution of decrees which were held by the lower Appellate Court to be barred by limitation. The decree-holder appeals.2. It is first argued on his behalf that limitation is saved by the fact that the execution of his decrees was suspended from the 11th March 1905 to the 31st March 1906 by an order under Section 273 of the old Code of Civil Procedure staying the execution.3. We find it impossible to deal with this contention without knowing precisely what was the order passed in Execution Case No. 52 of 1905 staying the execution and what was the application dated the 16th November 1905 by the decree-holder. Neither this order nor the application is before us and, in their absence, it is impossible for us to dispose of the point. But, in the view that we take of the second point raised by the decree-holder-appellant, it is unnecessary to say more on this matter.4. The second point taken is that limitation is saved by an acknowledg...
Arjun Ram Pal Vs. Rohima Banu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.128
Coxe, J.1. This was a suit on the mortgage executed by one Akram on the 20th August 1895. The due date was the 28th November 1895 and the suit was instituted on the 25th November 1907. The plaintiff has obtained a partial decree with which he is dissatisfied and hence this appeal2. The first point taken is, that the Court below is wrong in holding the suit to be barred by limitation against defendants Nos. 6--12. This decision, however, seems to me clearly right. These defendants claim through Akram's daughters and were made parties more than 12 years after the due date. This delay, according to the Court below, was due to the plaintiff's laches. That is a finding that I have no power to disturb in second appeal and is, moreover, perfectly reasonable. If a man waits till the last moment of the long period allowed him before suing on a mortgage, he has no reason to be surprised if he finds that he cannot bring all necessary parties on the record in time. It is argued that limitation is ...
Eastern Mortgage and Agency Co. Ld. Vs. Purna Chandra Sarbagna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.497a
1. This is an application by way of a petition to the Court under Order XLV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by one desiring to appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that the application is out of time, and in support of this, it is argued that Clause (2) of Section 12 of the new Limitation Act does not apply to an application for a certificate under Order XLV of the Code. But the answer to this is furnished by the phraseology of Article 179 of the first Schedule of the Limitation Act, which describes an application of this kind as an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It is manifest, therefore, that Clause (2) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act does apply to applications such as the present, and the objection fails.3. As the decree from which it is sought to appeal is one of reversal, the only question is whether the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute is of the requisite amount, or whether it inv...
Nepal Chandra Roy Chowdhury Vs. Niroda Sundari Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal506
Cecil Brett and Carnduff, JJ.1. This Rule was issued to show cause why an order passed by the Subordinate Judge setting aside an ex parte decree should not be reversed on the ground that the application on which it was made was barred by limitation. The present applicant brought a suit to recover the amount due on an instalment bond, and obtained an ex parte decree on the 28th March 1906. Execution was applied for on the 19th February 1907, and the property of the judgment-debtor was sold and purchased by the decree-holder on the 27th May 1907. The present application by the opposite party to set aside the ex parte decree was made on the 27th June 1911, that is to say, more than four years after the conclusion of the previous proceedings. Before the lower Court it was contended on behalf of the present applicant that the application was barred on the ground that the application to set aside the ex parte decree obtained by the applicant could only have been made when the provisions of t...
Nepal Chandra Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Niroda Sundari Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.551
1. This rule was issued to show cause why an order passed by the Subordinate Judge setting aside an ex parte decree should not be reversed on the ground that the application on which it was made was barred by limitation. The present applicant brought a suit to recover the amount due on an instalment-bond, and obtained an ex parte decree on the 28th March 1906. Execution was applied for on the 19th February 1907, and the property of the judgment-debtor was sold and purchased by the decree-holder on the 27th May 1907. The present application by the opposite party to set aside the ex parte decree was made on 27th June 1911, that is to say, more than four years after the conclusion of the previous proceedings. Before the lower Court, it was contended, on behalf of the present applicant, that the application was barred on the ground that the application to set aside the ex parte decree obtained by the applicant could only have been made when the provisions of the Limitation Act of 1877 were...
Temwa Uraon Vs. Ram Uraon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.54
Coxe, J.1. These were suits for recovery of possession on the determination of the plaintiff's ancestral raiyati right to the laud. The plaintiff's case was that the land was his ancestral raiyati and that, during his temporary absence, his wife and children had been dispossessed by the principal defendant in collusion with the landlord. The defendant alleged that the lands had been settled with him. The suit has been decreed, and the defendant appeals.2. It has been argued on his behalf that these were suits for recovery of the possession of land under Section 37, Sub-section 6, of the Chhota Nagpur Landlords and Tenants Procedure Act, 1879, that, therefore, they were not cognizable by the Civil Court, and that the decision was, therefore, without jurisdiction. It is also argued that under Section 42 of the same Act, they were suits instituted under the Act and, therefore, barred by limitation, as they were not instituted within a year of the dispossession.3. The only question which a...
Rajani Kanta Sarkar and ors. Vs. Makhan Lal Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.542
1. The learned Pleader, who appears in support of this appeal, has very candidly admitted that his clients appear in the lower Court to have taken every possible point against the plaintiff's claim, that many of these points were unimportant, and that all of them have been decided against them. The only points to which he invites our attention in the present appeal are, first the question dealt with in Issue No. 2. The Letters of Administration of the estate, under which the present plaintiff claims as legatee, are granted to the widow, and it is suggested that she alone could bring the suit to recover the 4-annas share of the rent claimed by the present plaintiff. This point, has, however, been dealt with by the lower Court. It is clear that the present plaintiff has in another suit obtained a declaration that he is entitled to a 4-annas share of the land, and in these circumstances, we think that the lower Courts were right in holding that the suit brought by him for his share of the...