Kolkata Court April 1912 Judgments
Raja Balabhadra Singh Deb Vs. Raja Radhashyam Singh Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.381
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Court below refusing execution of a decree for costs. The respondent was the tenth defendant, in a suit brought by the plaintiff. He contested the claim, but a decree was made against him and he was made liable for costs. The other defendants settled with the plaintiff and as between them, a decree was made by consent. The tenth defendant then appealed to this Court. At the hearing, upon his application, he was allowed to withdraw from the appeal; and he was also dismissed from the suit with liberty to bring, if so advised, a suit for possession of the property in dispute against the successful plaintiff. The Court further directed that no order be made as regards the costs of the appeal. The question in controversy between the parties now is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to execute the decree for costs of the original Court against the tenth defendant. On his behalf, it has been contended that as he was dismissed from the suit, t...
Tag this Judgment!Sailoja Prosad Chatterjee Vs. Gyani Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.355
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the decree-holders against an order whereby this application for execution of a rent decree obtained by them in 1904 against the respondent has been dismissed. It appears that in 1906 the appellants obtained a decree for money against the respondent. In execution of that decree, they attached the tenure in respect of which the rent decree now sought to be executed had been previously obtained. At the instance of the decree-holders, it was proclaimed at the time of sale that the tenure in question was subject to a judgment-debt under the decree of 1904 At the sale which followed, the decree-holders purchased the property. They now seek to execute the decree against the properties of the judgment-debtor other than the defaulting tenure which they themselves have purchased. The Subordinate Judge has held that the effect of the purchase by the decree-holders in 1906 was to extinguish the decree which they now seek to execute. On behalf of the appellants, i...
Tag this Judgment!Khitish Chandra Acharya Chowdhury Vs. the Khulna Loan Company Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.728
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Khulna confirming an order of the Subordinate Judge, of that place in an application for execution of a decree. It appears that the decree was for rent of a certain putni taluk which had been previously sold for subsequent arrears of rent and purchased by the Khulna Loan Company Limited. The decree-holder, in execution of his decree, sought to recover the decretal amount being rent for an antecedent period by sale for the second time of this putni taluk. Both the lower Courts held that he was not entitled to execute his decree by sale of the putni taluk after it had already been sold once for subsequent arrears of rent and that his remedy lay in a suit against the original tenant for recovery of the amount of rent due for previous years as a money debt. The learned Pleader who appears in support of the appeal contends, on the authority of case of the Peary Mohan Mukhopadhya v. Sreeram Chandra Bose 6 C.W.N. 794 that his clie...
Tag this Judgment!Binode Kishore Goswami Vs. Ashutosh Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.720
1. In this case a Hindu widow, shortly before her death, transferred a Government promissory-note to the defendant, her brother's son, by means of a registered deed of gift, and the finding is that she was competent to dispose of the note as it was part of her stridhan. The plaintiffs, who are her heirs, have attacked the transfer as invalid and sought to recover the note or its value, with the interest accrued, from the defendant. The Court of first instance held that, in the absence of endorsement and delivery, there was no valid transfer and it decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court appears to have held that the note could have been validly transferred without endorsement by delivery of possession with intent to transfer; but it affirmed the decree on the ground that, although possession had been delivered at the time of registration, the lady did not intend to part with the property in the instrument.2. The appeal to this Court raises two points of law. The first is as to whet...
Tag this Judgment!Bireswar Das Dey and anr. Vs. Kamal Kumar Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.437
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court of Appeal below, in reversal of the order of the Court of first instance, has refused execution of a decree for rent held by the appellants against one Adharmoni. It appears that the decree was obtained on the 11th August 1900 for rent of a temporary tenure originally granted to Jogendra Nath Mallik which, after his death, passed into the hands of his widow Adharmoni, who was also administratrix to the estate of her husband. She enjoyed the income but made default in payment of rent to the superior landlord; the decree now under execution was consequently obtained against her. The decree was not, however, fully executed daring her life-time, and now after her death, execution is sought against the estate of her husband, Jogendra Nath Mallik in the hands of the reversionary heir. On behalf of the decree-holders, it has been urged, first, that as Adharmoni h described in the decree as administratrix, the decree is binding upo...
Tag this Judgment!Safaraddi and anr. Vs. Durga Prosad Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.966
1. This is an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The appellant complains that he has not been awarded mesne profits by the lower Courts, although at hid instance a sale of property has been set aside. In order to appreciate the real points in the case, it has to be borne in mind that the appellant claims to be the transferee of a part of a non-transferable occupancy-holding, while the auction-purchaser, whose sale has been set aside, is also the landlord decree holder. The suit in which the landlord obtained his decree was one for rent brought by him as landlord of the holding against the tenant, and the present appellant was no party to that suit. The sale was set aside under Sections 244 and 311 of the Code of 1882, at the instance of the appellant who claimed that his interests were affected by the sale. He contends that he is entitled to these mesne profits by virtue of Section 144 of the present Code, or that he is entitled to invoke in aid of his claim the exercise of t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hari Pada Mukherji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.654
1. The present petitioner, in consequence of a complaint made to the District Magistrate of Howrah on the 26th October 1911 by some members of the Criminal Court Bar Association that he was acting as a tout, was called on to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the provisions of Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The learned District Magistrate did not himself conduct the whole of the proceedings against the petitioner but he ordered the Joint Magistrate to inquire into the matter and report to him. The evidence appears to have been taken by the Joint Magistrate but the petitioner does not appear to have been present while the witnesses were examined nor does he appear to have been given an opportunity of cross-examining them. The Joint Magistrate, on the 15th November 1911, reported to the District Magistrate that the petitioner should be called on to show cause why he should not be enlisted as a tout. The learned District Magistrate recorded an order approving of ...
Tag this Judgment!Nishakar Chankaravarti and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Tewari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.634
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property brought by a Hindu reversioner. The property in dispute belonged to one Hira Lal Gossain, upon whose death, in or about the year 1863, it descended to his widow, Ambika Dabya. On the 12th September 1870, she granted a permanent lease to the predecassor-in-interest of the appellants. She died many years later, in 1897. In the year following, the plaintiffs purchased the property from persons who had acquired an interest in a third share as reversionary heirs to the estate of Hira Lal Gossain. On the 22nd November 1905, the plaintiffs commenced this action for recovery of possession; their claim was resisted substantially on the ground that the lease had been granted for legal necessity and was, consequently, binding upon the, inheritance in the hands of the reversioners. This contention has been overruled by the Courts below. The plaintiffs are thus prima facie entitled to recove...
Tag this Judgment!Anukul Chandra Chakravarti and ors. Vs. NabIn Chandra Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.1
1. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree in a title suit and proceeded with a farther suit in which he sought to recover mesne profits of lands which he had recovered from the defendant. He succeeded before the Munsif in obtaining a decree for Us. 766. On appeal to the lower Appellate Court, this was reduced to a sum of Rs. 296-10.2. The question before us is whether the basis on which the Appellate Court arrived at the sum of Rs. 296 is a proper; basis for the purpose. In our opinion, it is not, It appears that before the plaintiff was dispossessed, he had settled the lands at a rental of Rs. 40 per year and it is on this basis that the Rs. 296 is calculated, that is, the Appellate Court considered not what the defendant may be taken to have made but what the plaintiff lost. ' This is not the correct basis, as is shown by the definition of mesne profits in Section 2, subsection 12 of the Civil Procedure Code. The duty of the Court in estimating mesne profits is there so clearly...
Tag this Judgment!Aisa Siddika and ors. Vs. Bidhu Sekhar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.633
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for a declaratory decree, which has been dismissed on the ground that under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, they were able to seek further relief than a mere declaration and had failed to do so. The case for the plaintiffs is that the property in dispute is wakf, that the second and third defendants, who are the husbands of the plaintiffs and Mutwalis of the property, have, in violation of the trust, executed a mortgage in favour of the first defendant, that the mortgagee has sued to enforce his security and obtained a decree and that he is about to realise the decree by the sale of the property. The plaintiffs, therefore, seek for a declaration that the subject-matter of the litigation is wakf (wherein they are interested as beneficiaries under the wakfnama), that the mortgage is null and void and that the decree based therein cannot be validly executed so as to affect the disputed property. This declaration the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »