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.
Prosonno Kumar Basu Vs. JamaluddIn Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.55
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in a suit for contribution. The plaintiff and the second defendant are under-ryots and possess their holding in equal halves. In 1904, the second defendant transferred his half share of the holding to the first defendant. The superior landlord, who was clearly not bound to recognise the transfer, brought a suit for arrears of rent against the plaintiff and the second defendant to recover his dues in respect of the years 1902 to 1905. He obtained a decree and proceeded to execute it by the attachment of the moveables of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon satisfied the decree and commenced the present action for contribution. The sole question in controversy is whether the first defendant can be made liable for any portion of the sum paid by the plaintiff. It has been argued on his behalf in this Court that he ought not to be made liable because neither under Section 69 nor under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act is any liabil...
Nim Chand Saha Vs. Joy Chandra Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal839
Richard Harington and Asutosh Mookerjee, JJ.1. This is au appeal on behalf at the plaintiff in an action for rent. The sole point in controversy relates to the rate at which the plaintiff is entitled to realise rent in view of Section 48 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff is an occupancy raiyat and the defendants are under-raiyats under him. The defendants were on a previous occasion sued in ejectment; they then pleaded that they held these lands on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 10 a year On the present occasion, the plaintiff claims at the rate of Rs. 14 a year. The defence is that under Section 48 of the Bengal Tenancy Act he is not entitled to claim rent at a higher rate than Rs. 3-5-7. This contention was overruled by the Court of first instance and a decree was made at the rate of Rs. 10 a year. Upon appeal, the District Judge has allowed the contention of the defendants to prevail. The question raised is apparently one of first impression, and the solution must depend ...
Siva Sundari Chowdharani Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal834
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Backergunge to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners should not be set aside, or such other order passed as to this Court may seem fit, on the ground that it is doubtful which of the petitioners, if any, is liable under Section 154 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Now, the facts are that a certain naib of the estate got up a riot in order to dispossess certain persons by force, Four rioters were convicted: one of them was sentenced to one month and three others to two months' rigorous imprisonment. The first point, therefore, which we have to notice is that this riot appears not to have been in any sense a serious one. There is no doubt, under Section 154 of the Indian Penal Code, that the owner or occupier of the land, or any person having or claiming an interest in such land, is punishable with fine not exceeding 1,000 rupees, if lie or his agent or manager do not use all la...
Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Anandapriya Baishanabi an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1912
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.946
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Maharaja of Tipperah in a suit commenced by him for assessment of rent in respect of the disputed land against the representatives of one Durga Charan Chakrabarti. In 1894 the laud was in the occupation of occupancy raiyats and when proceedings were taken under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act they appeared before the Settlement Authorities awl staled that they held under Durga Charan, who himself was a rent-free holder. On the 21st August 1896 the Settlement Record was prepared with an entry to the effect that the Maharaja was the zemindar, Durga Charan was an intermediate holder and the occupancy raiyats held under the latter. On the 11th April 1908 the present action was commenced for assessment of rent. The defendants pleaded that the land was not liable to be assessed with rent, and that in any event the claim for assessment was barred by limitation.2. The Court of first instance overruled these contentions and assessed rent. Upon appeal th...
Siva Sundari Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.317
1. This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Backergunga to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners should not be set aside, or such other order passed as to this Court may seem fit on the ground that it is doubtful which of the petitioners, if any, is liable under Section 154, Indian Penal Code.2. Now, the facts are that a certain Naib of the estate got up a riot in order to dispossess certain person by force. Four rioters were convicted. One of them was sentenced to one month's, and three others to two months' rigorous imprisonment. The first point, therefore, which we have to notice is that this riot appears not to have been in any sense a serious one. There is no doubt that under Section 154, Indian Penal Code, the owner or occupier of the land or any person having or claiming an interest in such land is punishable with fine not exceeding Rs. 1,000, if he or his agent or manager do not use all lawful means in their power to prevent it, and i...
Harish Chandra Mukherjea Vs. the East India Coal Co. Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.576
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Fletcher, who dismissed an application made to him by one Harish Chandra Mukerjee for the purpose of obtaining an annulment of an adjudication against him under Section 10 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act of 1909. This adjudication order was made by Mr. Justice Harington on the 15th of June 1911, and the act of insolvency on which it was made is set out in the order: It is that 'the properties of the said Krishno Kisore Adhikary, Sasti Kinkar Banerjee and Harish Chandra Mukerjee have been attached in execution of a decree of this Court in its Ordinary Appellate Jurisdiction for a period of more than 21 days.' The petition sought for an adjudication against these three debtors, and the order was in accordance with the terms of the petition. The present appellant, one of those adjudged insolvents, that is to say, Harish Chandra Mukherjee, seeks to have the adjudication annulled on the ground that his property h...
Gopal Chandra Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Surendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.460
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a mortgage suit. The mortgage was executed by defendant No. 1 who is not a party to the appeal. The appellants are two persons, one of whom took a lease of some property comprised in the mortgage and the other took a putni lease of properties equally encumbered. The plaintiffs sued on their mortgage and recovered judgment. The objection taken by the defendants is that the mortgage-deed was presented for registration more than four months after the execution, that to enable it to be registered under the law, the date was altered by the mortgagor and thereby registration was obtained which was not warranted by law. The mortgage was executed on the 24th April 1905. It was registered on the 21st September 1905, the date having been altered to the 25th June 1905. The lease taken by one of the appellants was not taken till September 1906, and the other some time after. The result, therefore, is that the leases were taken long after the registration o...
Hari Lal Singha and ors. Vs. Rup Manjori Burmoni and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.137
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action in ejectment. The subject-matter of the litigation, a parcel of homestead land, admittedly belonged to one Krishna Mohini Dasi, who died in March, 1908. On the 22nd April 1908, her interest as tenant was purchased by the plaintiff from her brother, Krishna Das. Three days later, the defendants, now appellants, purchased the property from the same person. The plaintiff seeks to eject the defendants on the ground that she has a prior title. The defendants resist her claim on a two-fold ground; namely, first, that the interest of Krishna Mohini was not heritable, and, secondly, that as Krishna Mohini was a woman of ill-fame and an outcast, her brother Krishna Das was not her legal representative. The Courts below have overruled the first contention and have held that the interest of Krishna Mohini was heritable. Upon the second question, they have held that Krishna Das was the brother of Krishna Mohini as allegedly the plaintif...
Raja Janakl Ballav Sen Vs. Maharaj Kumar Gopal Lal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.301
1. The sole point in controversy in this appeal, which arises out of a suit for rent, is, whether the landlord or the tenant is entitled to the benefit of an annual deduction in the Government demands to the extent of Rs. 48-7-3. The patni lease, on the basis whereof the claim by the landlord, the plaintiff appellant, is founded, was executed on the 8th June 1896. Under that lease, the annual rent for the patni was fixed at Rs. 1,580-8-7. This amount is described in more than one place in the instrument as 'the fixed jama.' After reciting that the annual rent was fixed at this sum, the document proceeds to describe the mode of payment; Rs. 1,080-8-7 was to be paid into the Collectorate on account of the Government demands and the balance Rs. 500 was to be paid to the landlord as malikana. The Government demands were on account of Revenue, Road cess and dak cess, and the payment thereof was undertaken by the tenant. In 1906, the Government demand in respect of cesses appears to have bee...
Purna Chandra Sarma Vs. Peary Mohan Pal Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal828
Richard Haringtona and Asutosh Mookerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in a suit to enforce a mortgage security, executed by him on the 19th July 1907 for an advance of Rs. 300. It was agreed between the parties that interest would be paid at the rate of 40 aris of paddy on Rs. 100 annually; in other words, that 120 aris of paddy would be paid upon the principal amount each year. It was farther provided that if interest was not paid in kind, as stipulated, the value Section of the paddy would be taken as Rs. 100. There was, however, no time fixed for repayment in the deed as drawn up; the position, thus, was that the mortgagee could enferce the security whenever he liked and the mortgagor could claim redemption whenever he pleased: Fitzgerald v. Mellersh [1892] 1 Ch. 385 Harding v. Tingey (1864) 34 L.J. Ch. 13. Consequently after the deed had been executed, a clause was added to the effect that 'the money would be paid, principal and interest, within one yea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »