Kolkata Court March 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.
Trinayani Dasi Vs. Krishna Lal De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal906
Cecil Brett and Carnduff, JJ.1. In these appeals, the appellant seeks to have set aside an order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge of the 24-Parganas under the provisions of Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The property in respect of which compensation was awarded by the Collector was a portion of property which had been devoted to an idol. Out of this debutter property two houses have been acquired by 'Government for public purposes. In the case out of which appeal No. 135 of 1910 arises, the house and the land attached are No. 40, Champatola 1st Lane; and in the case out of which appeal No. 136 of 1910 arises, the land and the building are No. 105, College Street--both in the town of Calcutta. No objection appears to have been taken to the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector; but the two sums deposited in respect of these two houses were claimed by Srimati Trinayani Dasi, the present appellant, on the ground that she was entitled to these sums as execu...
Kumar Kalanand Singh and anr. Vs. Kumar Kamalanand Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.225
1. This suit relates to an estate which is divided into a number of separate villages. The estate was settled about 70 years ago and at that time the revenue assessed on the predecessors of the defendants, whom we may call Sunagar, was fixed at Rs 991; while that assessed on the predecessors of the plaintiff, whom we may call Banaili, was fixed at Rs. 4,371, the total revenue of the whole estate which was a single estate being Rs. 5,365. Partition proceedings took place between Banaili and Sunagar and while they were still pending, this suit was brought by Banaili for a declaration that they owned certain shares specified in the schedule to the plaint in the different villages of the estate and that Sunagar also owned specified shares. The share claimed by Banaili in the two villages Madhubanx and Chhit Moranga was the entire 16-annas. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge and the plaintiff appeals to this Court.2. The point in dispute is really a very short one and is simply...
Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. Jagannath Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.229
Coxe, J.1. The plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest let the land in suit to one Mr. Martin at the rent of Rs. 40-4 sicca. It consisted of garden and bantu land and it was stipulated that if any of the garden was converted into bantu land, the rent on it should be raised from Rs. 5 to Rs. 10 a bigha. There was also a stipulation for payment of rent on excess land. The plaintiff alleged that the whole land had been converted into bastu, that there was a growing custom that such lands should bear a rent of Rs. 20 a bigha, and asked that the land should be measured and a decree for rent given him at the rate of Rs. 20 a bigha for the area found by measurement.2. The defendant is the present tenant of the land.3. The learned Sub-Judge found that the area had not increased; that the garden land, except an area of 1 bigha 8 cottahs, had been converted into bastu, and gave the plaintiffs a decree in accordance with the rates stipulated in the qabuliat.4. The plaintiff appeals. It is first argue...
Srimati Trinayani Dasi Vs. Krsihna Lal Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.724
1. In these appeals, the appellant seeks to have set aside an order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge of the 24-Pergannahs under the provisions of Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act. The property in respect of which compensation was awarded by the Collector was a portion of property, which had been devoted to an idol. Out of this debutter property, two houses have been acquired by Government for public purposes. In the case out of which Appeal No. 135 of 1910 arises, the house and the land attached are No. 40, Champatollah 1st lane and, in the case out of which Appeal No. 136 of 1910 arises, the land and the building are No. 105, College Street, both in the town of Calcutta. No objection appears to have been taken to the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector; but the two sums deposited in respect of these two houses were claimed by Srimati Trinayani Dasi, the present appellant, on the ground that she was entitled to these sums as executrix to the Will of her la...
Galstaun Vs. Hutchison
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal789
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. The plaintiff has brought this suit to recover Rs. 58,932-1-8. In his plaint he alleges that from and after the 28th August 1905 he and the defendant had various monetary dealings: that the defendant from time to time made various part payments on account of principal and interest: that on the 1st September 1908 the account was adjusted and stated between the plaintiff and the defendant showing a balance of Rs. 45,039-9-3 due to the plaintiff, and the same was admitted and signed by the defendant as correct: that thereafter further dealings took place; and that there is now due and owing from the defendant's, the plaintiff, Rs. 58,932-1-3.2. The plaint was instituted on the 6th of July 1911, and as provided by Order VIII, Rule I, the defendant was required to present a written statement of his defence.3. The defendant entered an appearance through his attorneys, but be failed to present a written statement.4. The suit was transferred from the list o...
Ahad Baksh Molla Vs. Sheikh Babar Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.173
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under the provisions of Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act of 1877. The cause of action is the refusal by the Registrar to order a document to be registered. This refusal was on the 29th of November 1906. The present suit was instituted on the 2nd of January 1907. Now, Section 77, in authorising a suit as the result of such a refusal, imposes as a condition that it should be instituted within thirty days after the making of the order of refusal. The institution here was after more than thirty days. Therefore, it is urged on the part of the defendant that the suit is barred.2. This view found favour with the Munsif. But the learned Subordinate Judge considered that the suit was brought within time, inasmuch as the 29th of December, the thirtieth day, was a holiday, and it was not until the 2nd of January that the Court was re-opened. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was affirmed on appeal by Mr. Justice Digambar...
Tarani Kant Bhattacharyya and anr. Vs. Bhobani Nath Dey Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.218
1. This case comes before us on second appeal. The suit was brought by the plaintiff on his becoming sui juris for damages in respect of occupation of lands by the defendants.2. The defendants set up an ijara pattah granted by the mother of the plaintiff. She purported to grant it as the guardian of the father of the plaintiff who was a lunatic. It was a lease for more than five years and it was not granted under the authority of the Court in conformity with the provisions of Section 14 of the Lunacy Act (XXX V of 1858).3. The first question that is raised before us is, whether this lease was absolutely void, as it has been held to be by the lower Appellate Court, or whether it was only voidable. We are of opinion that it was only voidable. There is no direct authority on the construction of Section 14 of the Lunacy Act; but there are authorities from which the above conclusion may be reached with some certainty. Section 14 of the Lunacy Act gives certain powers over the lunatic's prop...
Anandamoyee Chowdhurani Vs. Gokul Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.290
1. The present petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit which she has brought against the defendant No. 1, who is the adopted son of her deceased husband, and certain other persons. The petitioner sued to have her title declared to, and to recover possession of, certain ornaments and other moveable properties which, she alleged, had been wrongfully removed from her custody by the defendants and belonged to her and did not belong to the defendant No. 1. She sought to recover possession of those properties or to obtain a decree for their value which she assessed at about Rs. 98,000. An application was made by the defendants in the suit under Order XXV, Rule 1, Clause (3), Civil Procedure Code, for an order from the Court directing the plaintiff to furnish security for the defendants' costs in the suit. The plaintiff in the suit is a woman, and it was alleged that she did not possess any sufficient immoveable property within British India to cover the costs which might be incurred by the def...
Panchanan Ghosh Vs. Mir Abdul Molik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.703
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage. The plaintiff is unquestionably the mortgagee. He has made as defendants, the original mortgagor defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2, who claims to be a purchaser in execution of a money-decree obtained against defendant No. 1, and defendant No. 3, who claims to be in possession of the land and to be in possession as a landlord who ejected defendant No. 2 on the ground that the transfer in execution to defendant No. 2 was void and of no effect, and worked a forfeiture of the tenant's interest. The plaintiff, however, maintains that defendant No. 1 had a permanent transferable interest, and that the decree obtained by defendant No. 6 against defendant No. 2 was improper and collusive. The Subordinate Judge has decided both these points in favour of the plaintiff. The result then is that if that be correct--and it must be taken to be correct for the present purpose--the defendant No. 3, though he may be the landlord of this piece of land, i...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. W.C. Hutchison
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.279
Lawrence Jenkins, K. C., C.J.1. The plaintiff has brought this suit to recover Rs. 58,932-1-3. In his plaint he alleges that from and after the 28th August 1905, he and the defendant had various monetary dealings; that the defendant from time to time made various part payments on account of principal and interest: that on the 1st September 1908 the account was adjusted and stated between the plaintiff and the defendant showing a balance of Rs. 45,039-9-3 due to the plaintiff and the same was admitted and signed by the defendant as correct; that thereafter further dealings took place; and that there is now due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiff Rs. 58,932-1-3.2. The plaint was instituted on the 6th of July 1911, and, as provided by Order VIII, Rule 1, the defendant was required to present a written statement of his defence.3. The defendant entered an appearance through his Attorney, but he failed to present a written statement.4. The suit was transferred from the list of defe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »