Kolkata Court March 1912 Judgments
Ayennessa Bibi Vs. Sheikh Isuf and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.722
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for exclusive possession of land or partition, and the real question in dispute between the parties is what is the amount of the shares of the respective litigants. This, as the case has been placed before us, depends solely and exclusively on the question how far defendant No. 1 can claim the benefit of the Statute of Limitations. The claim under the Statute of Limitations arises as follows: Defendant No. 1 is the brother of the plaintiff, and on their father's death, which occurred many years ago, the property devolved on the father's widow, his son defendant No. 1 and three daughters of whom the plaintiff is one. It is the case of defendant No. 1 that he has been in exclusive possession of the land in dispute from his father's death, or, at any rate, in possession to the exclusion of his sisters, And on that ground he claims to have acquired a title by adverse possession, urging that their interests have become extinguished by virtue of Section 28...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Basu Vs. Girija Sundari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.299
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The circumstances of this case are peculiar. One Ganga Mohan Bose died, and on his death his widow, Bindu Bishini, succeeded to a widow's interest in his estate. In 1877 she executed a mortgage in favour of defendant No. 1. Subsequently, the mortgagee took action under Section 7 of Regulation XVII of 1806, and, notwithstanding the argument that has been adduced to us, I see no reason to hold that there was any irregularity in those proceedings. As a sequel, the mortgagee instituted a suit which resulted in a decree for foreclosure against the widow Bindu Bashini in 1882 The widow preferred an appeal, but while the appeal was pending, she died and the appeal was continued not by Ganga Mohan's reversionary heir but by the widow's legal personal representative, her daughter, and a decree was passed on appeal on the 23rd of June 1882, affirming that of the first Court. In 1884, the mortgagee obtained possession. A suit was instituted in 1885 by the present plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Bose Vs. Girija Sundari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal925
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. The circumstances of this case are peculiar: one Ganga Mohan Bose died, and on his death his widow Bindubasini succeeded to a widow's interest in his estate. In 1877 she executed a mortgage in favour of defendant No. 1. Subsequently, the mortgagee took action under Section 7 of Regulation XVII of 1806, and notwithstanding the argument that has been addressed to us, I see no reason to hold that there was any irregularity in those proceedings. As a sequel the mortgagee instituted a suit which resvdted in a decree for foreclosure against the widow Bindubasini in 1882. The widow preferred an appeal, but while the appeal was pending she died, and the appeal was continued not by Ganga Mohan's reversionary heir, but by the widow's legal personal representative, her daughter, and a decree was passed on appeal on the 23rd of June 1882 affirming that of the first Court. In 1884, the mortgagee obtained possession. A suit was instituted in 1886 by the, present ...
Tag this Judgment!Kesobati Vs. Mohan Chandra Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal1010
Coxe and Imam, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Dumka allowing an attachment of the estate of the judgmentp-debtor and appointing a Receiver.2. By a compromise between the parties in Appeal from Origional Decree No. 467 of 1907, it was decreed that the decetal amount was to be paid toe the decree holder in three instalments and failure to pay any two consecutive instalments was to entitle the plaintiff decree-holder to ralize the entire amount due at the time of such default by executing the entire decree, it being further stated in the petition of compromise that the decretal amount was realizable form the estate of the late Raja Udit Narain Sing (the deceased husband of the judgment-debtor) as well as from the defendatnt judgment-debtor personally.3. There having been default in the payment of two consecutive instalments, the decree-holder applied for execution of his entire decree and prayed for realization of the decretal amount by the appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Keshabati Koeri Vs. Mohan Chandra Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.227
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Dumka allowing an attachment of the estate of the judgment-debtor and appointing a Receiver.2. By a compromise between the parties in appeal from Original Decree No. 467 of 1907, it was decreed that the decretal amount was to be paid to the decree-holder in three instalments and failure to pay any two consecutive instalments was to entitle the plaintiff decree-holder to realize the entire amount due at the time of such default by executing the entire decree, it being further stated in the petition of compromise that the decretal amount was realizable from the estate of the late Raja Udit Narain Singh (the deceased husband of the judgment-debtor) as well as from the defendant judgment-debtor personally.3. There having been default in the payment of two consecutive instalments, the dtcree-holder applied for execution of his entire decree and prayed for realisation of the decretal amount by the appointment of a Receiver for...
Tag this Judgment!Mrinalini Debi Vs. Tinkori Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.297
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Srimati Mrinalini Debi against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly dismissing her suit under the following circumstances:On the 30th of September 1907, the plaintiff presented a petition for leave to sue the defendant, Srimati Tincori Debi, in forma pauperis. This application was refused on 28th March 1908 on the ground that she was not a pauper, and she was ordered to pay the costs of the defendant and of the Government. The costs' of the Government amounted to Rs. 16-4. On 6th May 1908, the plaintiff applied to the Court for leave to pay the full Court-fees. On 13th May 1908, the Court gave her three days in which to pay, and on 16th May 1908, extended the time for another three days. The fees, Rs. 325, were paid by the plaintiff on 18th May 1908, and on 19th May 1908 it was ordered that the suit be registered and fixed for settlement of issues on 3rd July 1908. On 10th July 1908, the defendant filed her written statement pleading (among...
Tag this Judgment!Salima Saidatannessa Bibi Vs. Enatulla Talukdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.524
1. It appears to us that we must follow the decision in Girish Chandra Chowdhry v. Kedar Chandra Roy 27 C. 473, for we are unable to perceive how it can be said that this case has been overruled by any subsequent decision of a Full Bench. On this basis, we must grant the plaintiff the relief to which she is entitled, that is, joint possession to the extent of 7 annas with the other co-sharers, that is, the principal defendants and the pro-forma defendants. We do not think that in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary to consider any further or incidental relief.2. The appellant must have her costs in the High Court and in the lower Courts from the respondents, in proportion to her success, that is to say, on the basis of Its. 60 the market-value of the 7 annas share....
Tag this Judgment!Kali Charan Naskar Vs. Ram Kumar Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.67
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, on behalf of himself and his co-villagers to vindicate their right to a village pathway, and to obtain appropriate relief. That is how the case was specifically framed by the pleadings. Before the Munsif, evidence was adduced with the result that the Munsif passed a decree in these terras: 'The suit is decreed with costs; it is declared that the land described in the map filed along with the plaint is a village road.' The learned Munsif then proceeded to give the appropriate relief. In the grounds of appeal preferred from this decree, nowhere is it suggested that the appropriate description was not a village road but a public highway. All that was contended was that there was no pathway at all. The case came before the lower Appellate Court, with the result that the decision of the Court of first instance was confirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs. Then the c...
Tag this Judgment!Shibeshur Prasad Bhagat Vs. Brij Mohan Missir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.183
1. This is an appeal by Shibeshur Prasad Bhagat, a minor, who sued by his grand-mother, Rukmini Kuari, as next friend, to set aside a sale by his father, Bhagwan Prasad Bhagat, of a certain family property. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law.2. The plaintiff's grand-father died about 1881 leaving considerable property including that which is the subject of this suit. The second defendant, Bhagwan Prashad, wsathen a minor and his mother Rukmini Kuari managed the property on his behalf. He attained his majority about 1893 and the debts which culminated in the alienation now in question appear to have begun about 1900 or a little later.3. In 1906, Bhagwan Prasad was very considerably involved in debt. He had three mortgages in favour of the defendant No. 1 who has now purchased the property from him and a number of other obligations on mortgages and rokas and he also required money for some litigation. Under those circumstances, on the 22nd May 1907, he sold th...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Bhushan Roy and anr. Vs. Banku Behari Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.293
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit to establish title, and the decision now under appeal is in the plaintiff's favour. Though there are many circumstances in the case which call for consideration, its true determination turns upon the real meaning and effect of what has been termed a covenant against transfer and a Clause for re-entry contained in the kabuliat of 1882, for if the landlord was entitled to enter under those provisions by virtue of what has happened in this case, then admittedly the plaintiffs must succeed. In my opinion, the plaintiffs have somewhat overstated their argument in so far as they contend that the Clause against transfer by sale or gift would cover a simple mortgage, so that, had the matter rested there, I should have felt unable to support the plaintiffs' claim. But that simple mortgage resulted in a sale, so that the broad result that we get is that there has been a transfer, and the only question is whether that transfer, in all the circumstances of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »