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.
Kristo Das Laha and ors. Vs. Jatindra Nath Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.145
1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs as mortgagees to enforce a mortgage executed in their favour by the defendant No. 1, who is a putnidar, by obtaining a decree against him jointly with the defendants Nos. 2 to 5, who are his landlords, and, in satisfaction of the decree, by selling up the putni tenure which, after the mortgage had been given, had been sold by the landlords in satisfaction of a decree for the recovery of arrears of rent and had been purchased by them. What appears to have happened is, that the defendant No. 1, the putnidar, after he had given the mortgage to the plaintiffs, defaulted in paying the rent due on the putni-tenure. In consequence, the defendants Nos. 2 to 5, the landlords, brought a suit under the Tenancy Act against the putnidar to recover the rent, and obtained a decree. Thereafter they sold up the putni-tenure in execution of the decree and purchased it themselves. By this sale, the claim for rent was apparently satisfie...
The Collector of Dacca Vs. Hari Das Bysak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.163
1. This is an appaal against a judgment of the District Judge of Dacca in a reference made to him under the Land Acquisition Act. The land in respect of which the claimants claimad compensation consisted of 3 bighas, 4 kothas, 16 dhurs in area and was acquired by the Municipality of Naraingunj for the purpose of constructing a road in that Municipality leading from the Henderson Road to Khanpur. The declaration under the Act was issued on the 1st July 1904, and published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 6th July of the same year. The land acquired was admittedly land which was partly used for the purpose of agriculture and partly formed portion of a pathway over which the public had a right of way. The proprietors of the land who may be described as the Bysaks are 14 in number and, under them, there were tenants, 8 in number, who claimed to be tenants with rights of occupancy. The Collector treating the land as agricultural assessed the interest of the tenants, whom he held to be tenants...
Purna Chandra Sarma Vs. Peary Mohan Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.287
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 arts of paddy or 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 of the paddy would be taken as Rs. 100. There was, however, no time fixed for re-payment in the deed as drawn up; the position, thus, was that the mortgagee could enforce the security whenever he liked and the mortgagor could claim redemption whenever he pleased Fitzgerald's Trustee v. Mellersh (1892) 1 Ch. 385 : 61 L.J.Ch. 231 : 66 L.T. 178 : 40 W.R. 251; Harding v. Tingey (1864) 34 L.J.Ch. 13 : 10 Jur. (N.S.) 872 : 10 : L.T. 323 : 12 W.R. 684. Consequently, after the deed had been executed, a clause was added to the effect that the money w...
Ram Charan Chanda Talukdar Vs. Taripulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal774
D. Chatterjee, J.1. In this case a Munsif dismissed a suit on a bond, and the decree was upheld by the Appellate Court. An application for sanction to prosecute the plaintiff for offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was refused by the Munsif. Prom this order an appeal was preferred evidently to the District Judge: this appeal was heard by the Subordinate Judge, who reversed the order of the Munsif and granted sanction. The plaintiff obtained this Rule for setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge.2. It is contended by the learned Vakil for the petitioner that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order that he has made, and on the merits that the order of the Munsif refusing sanction was a proper one and should not have been set aside as the Courts which decided the bond suit went upon the failure of the plaintiff to prove his case. The learned Vakil for the opposite party contends that we cannot go into the second question, as we have no ...
Kudrutulla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal781
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rale calling upon the District Magistrate of Rangpur to show cause why the convictions and sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on three grounds.2. The first ground is that the charge was defective, inasmuch as no common object was specified therein. The second ground is that there should have been a de wow; trial, the right to it never having been waived. The third ground is that the learned Deputy Magistrate should not have rejected the accused's prayer of the 27th November for calling for three witnesses who would have proved the entire falsity of the prosecution story.3. The case was a very simple and ordinary one, and though there may have been technical defects, we do not think any of the irregularities alleged have caused any prejudice to the accused persons. The complainants are joint iiaradars of a certain hat, and one of them got into an altercation and scuffle with one Kudrutulla, a lemon-seller, on the 8th Aug...
Binda Dasya Chutiani Vs. Chota
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.133
1. This suit was brought on the 4th of October 1907 on an alleged bond of the 7th of October 1904. The document, however, is not a bond but an agreement of partnership for the capture of elephants and incidentally mentions a debt of Rs. 600 previously taken from the plaintiff and provides that 6-annas of the profits of the business in the share of the executant would go towards the liquidation of the debt of Rs. 600. The defendant, who is the heir of the executant of the bond, pleads limitation and want of cause of action and the lower Courts have upheld the plea. It is contended in second appeal before us that the Courts below are wrong, firstly, in the construction of the agreement and, secondly, in holding that the document does not repel the bar of limitation.2. The document, undoubtedly, contains an acknowledgment of the debt and if it could be shown that it was made while the debt was yet alive, the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act would repel the statute. The plain...
Abdul Gaffur Vs. Sona Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.95
1. The transaction giving rise to this litigation was as follows: The plaintiff, who was a minor at the time, had to receive about Rs. 1,000 from the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. Amjad Ali, the ancestor of defendants Nos. 2--7, became the certificated guardian and Asraf Ali, the deceased defendant No. 1, the ancestor of defendants Nos. 8--11, stood surety for him to the extent of Rs. 1,000, the consideration most probably being that the guardian agreed to deposit with the surety the amount of Rs. 1,000 when drawn, so that the surety might consider himself safe. Soon after the certificate had been granted, the money was drawn and deposited with the surety who undertook to pay Rs. 60 annually as 'profits' for the maintenance of the minor and to return the principal amount and profits within one year. The transaction is called a deposit but the agreement to pay profits and to return principal with profits signifies that it was intended that the money should be used by the sur...
Kudrutullah and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.314
1. This was a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Rangpur to show cause why the convictions and sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside on three grounds. The first ground is that the charge was defective inasmuch as no common object was specified therein. The second ground is that there should have been a de novo trial, the rights to it never having been waived. The third ground is that the learned Deputy Magistrate should not have rejected the accused's prayer of the 27th November for calling for three witnesses who would have proved the entire falsity of the prosecution story.2. The case was a very simple and ordinary one and, although there may have been technical defects, we do not think any of the irregularities alleged have caused any prejudice to the accused persons. The complainants are joint ijardars of a certain hat and one of them got into an altercation and scuffle with one Kudrutulla, a. lemon-seller, on the 8th August. The next hat day the 12t...
Ram Charan Chandra and ors. Vs. Tirupulla Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.1007
D. Chatterjee, J.1. In this case a Munsif dismissed a suit on a bond and the decree was upheld by the Appellate Court. An application for sanction to prosecute the plaintiff for offences under Sections 463 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was refused by the Munsif. From this order an appeal was referred evidently to the District Judge. This appeal was heard by the Subordinate Judge who reversed the order of the Munsif and granted sanction. The plaintiff obtained this Rule for setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge.2. It is contended by the learned Vakil for the petitioner that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order that he has made and on the merits that the order of the Munsif refusing sanction was a proper one and should not have been set aside, as the Courts which decided the bond-suit went upon the failure of the plaintiff to prove his case. The learned Vakil for the opposite party contends that we cannot go into the second question as we have no juri...
Gobinda Chandra Roy Vs. Uday Chandra Sut and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.264
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action in ejectment. The subject-matter of the litigation is an occupancy holding which was purchased by the third defendant on the 30th January 1885. It has been found that the purchase, though made in the name of the third defendant, was for the benefit of his father. Consequently, upon the death of the latter, the third defendant and his brother, the fourth defendant, along with the other heirs of their father, became jointly interested in the tenancy. It appears that the first two defendants held a decree for money against the fourth defendant and in execution thereof attached the tenancy. The wife of the fourth defendant preferred a claim on the allegation that the property belonged to her father-in-law and had been transferred to her by way of gift. This was supported by the third defendant. But the claim was overruled. She then instituted a suit for declaration of her title and was unsuccessful. The decree was thereupon execu...