Kolkata Court April 1912 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Pyari Lal Haldar Vs. Hem Chandra Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.719
1. This appeal raises a very short and, we think, a very simple question.2. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the rent of a holding. The defendant denied that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. This defence prevailed, and the suit was dismissed, The plaintiff then appealed and in the appellate stage was allowed to withdraw his suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. He then brought the present action to eject the defendant on the ground that in the former suit he had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.3. We think it may be said to be settled by the current of decisions in this Court that the mere denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant does not, in cases to which the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 applies, work any forfeiture unless the denial was given effect to by a decree of the Court. The only decree that here can be relied on is a decree which has ceased to exist owing to the withdrawal to which we have referred above. The result seems to us to ...
H. Mathewson Vs. Raja Ram Kanai Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.387
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff the suit to enforce a mortgage security, alleged to have been executed in his favour on the 31st January, 1899, by two ladies, Rani Churamoni and Rani Ranapriya. The plaintiff joined three persons as parties defendants; the first was Raja Ram Kanai, the son of Rani Churamoni now deceased; the second was the mortgagor Rani Rampriya; and the third was Sham Sundar Singh, another son of Rani Churamoni, who is said to have executed in favour of the plaintiff a surety bond, of even date with the mortgage-bond, undertaking to pay the mortgage-money. The claim was resisted by all the defendants on the ground that the bond was without consideration and had not been validly executed by the ladies. The third defendant took an additional special defence on the ground that he was an infant when the security bond was executed. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit as against the first two defendants on the ground that neither execution, nor co...
Sheikh Golam Rahman Vs. Sheikh Wahed Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.470
1. This appeal is against an order of the District Judge of 24-Pergannahs, dated the 9th May 1910, dismissing an application made by the petitioner appellant to be declared an insolvent. The learned Judge has disposed of the application after examining the applicant alone and his judgment, which is very brief, is as follows: 'The application is refused with costs. The property transferred to the mother is worth, more than the debts and there is a legal presumption that the transfer was fraudulent. If the mother succeeds in establishing her right against the creditors, the debtor may apply again to be declared insolvent.' The petitioner, the original applicant, has appealed and the appeal has been opposed by the creditors who opposed the original application.2. In support of the appeal, reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in three cases reported in 15 Calcutta Weekly Notes and on another case reported in 32 Allahabad The cases in 15 Calcutta Weekly Notes are Udai Chand Mai...
Kamini Dasee Vs. Krishna Chandra Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal933
Chandhuri, J.1. This is a suit brought by a Hindu purdanashin lady to set aside a voluntary deed of gift in respect of 13 Mullanga Lane, which she had executed on the 15th July 1908 in favour of the defendant. The case made by her in the plaint is that the defendant 'taking advantage of her age and infirmity and helpless condition, obtained from her this deed of gift which she executed without any independent advice, being fully dominated by the defendant and in violation of the trust and confidence reposed in him.'2. The defendant is the son of her husband's priest, and he has also been her priest since his father's death. The defendant accepted the position that the onus lay upon him to show the entire bond fides of the transaction, it being conceded by him that there was fiduciary relationship between himself and the plaintiff. The plaintiff's husband, Durga Charan Soor, died in June or July 1906. This property did not come to her through her husband, but it had been given to her by...
Maharajah Sir Rameshwar Singh Bahadur Vs. Rateshwar Singh Alias Rahim ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.841
1. This is an appeal from an order made in the course of proceedings for the execution of a decree passed as far back as the 20th of December 1893. The record disclosed a long series of unsuccessful attempts on the part of the decree-holder to realize the decretal debt; and the substantial question is whether his rights under the decree are barred by the lapse of 12 years from the date when it was passed.2. The decree-holder made his first application on the 20th of March 1896 and his second on the 8th of February 1899. Both these are described as having been struck off.3. His next application was on the 3rd of February 1902; but as in the meantime, the judgment-debtor had died, he applied to the Court to execute the decree against the legal representatives of the deceased, his song, Babu Mudeshwar Singh and Babu Rateshwar Singh.4. The sons opposed on the ground that in the circumstances, they were not their father's legal representatives. This objection prevailed in the Court of the S...
Munshi Imam-ud-dIn Chaudhri Vs. Danesh Mahammad and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.738
N. Chatterjea, J.1. The plaintiff and the defen-dant No. 2 are the owners of a jote in undivided share, plaintiff's share being 10 annas and odd, and that of defendant No. 2 a 5 annas and odd. Plaintiff sued to eject the defendant No. 1 to the extent of his share in the jote on the ground that the term of the lease under which the defendant No. I held his share as an underraiyat had expired.2. The defence, inter alia, was that plaintiff as a co-sharer landlord was not entitled to maintain the suit for ejectment, that plaintiff was a tenure-holder and defendant No. 1 was an occupancy-raiyat and that the kabulyat executed by the defendant No. 1 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.3. The Court of first instance held that the kabulyat was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, that plaintiff was a raiyat and the defendant No. 1 an under-raiyat, but that there was no separate holding under the plaintiff and that plaintiff, therefore, could not alone maintain the suit. On appeal...
Panch Duar Thakur and anr. Vs. Mani Raut
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.88
1. This is an appeal from an order, and it is objected on the part of the respondent that no appeal lies. The point in dispute in one that arises under Order XXI, Rule 66, and the only point we have to consider is whether a determination of a matter under that rule is a decree and as such within Section 47 and so appealable. There are a number of decisions on the old Code, which favour the view that an appeal lies. On the new Code, however, there is one decision which has been brought to our notice, that is, the decision of Mr. Justice Mookerjee in Deoki Nandan Singh v. Bansi Singh 16 C.W.N. 124 : 14 C.L.J. 35 : 10 Ind. Cas. 371. I am in complete agreement with Mr. Justice Mookerjee's view of this matter, and, having regard to the new definition of the word 'decree' in Section 2, Sub-section (2) of the Code, I do not feel that it is necessary to go back to the earlier decisions which were based on a different definition.2. The result is that, in my opinion, the preliminary objection mu...
Kamini Dassee Vs. Krishna Chandra Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.110
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is a suit brought by a Hindu purdahnishin lady to set aside a voluntary deed of gift in respect of 13, Mullanga Lane, which she had executed on the 15th July 1908, in favor of the defendant. The case maids by her in the plaint is that the defendant, taking advantage of her age and infirmity and helpless condition, obtained from her this deed of gift which she executed without any independent advice, being fully dominated by the defendant and in violation of the trust and confidence reposed in him.'2. The defendant is the son of her husband's priest and he has also been her priest since his father's death. The defendant accepted the position that the onus lay upon him to show the entire bona fides to the transaction, it being conceded by him that there was fiduciary relationship between himself and the plaintiff. The plaintiff's husband, Darga Charan Soor, died in June or July 1906. This property did not come to her through her husband, but it had been given to her ...
Mohunga Ojha and ors. Vs. Ram Bahadur Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.23
1. The only point on this appeal is whether the decree-holder can realize his decree for costs otherwise than by proceeding under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. In cases of this kind what we have to see is not what decree the Court ought to have passed, but what decree the Court has passed. If the Court passed a personal decree for costs, then there is no necessity of having recourse to the procedure indicated in Section 90. The learned District Judge has held that there was a personal liability for these costs imposed by the decree. I see no reason to differ from this, more particularly when it is borne in mind that these were costs not of the suit but of the appeal. Therefore, I think the decree of the District Judge must be confirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs, hearing fee one gold mohur....
Abdul Kader Vs. Ali Meah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.715
1. During the pendency of a suit on a bond-note by the defendant No. 1 against defendant No. 2, the latter sold his homestead with a tank to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 700, The defendant No. 1 subsequently obtained a decree on the bond-note and attached the said land. The plaintiff put in a claim under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code and it was disallowed and the property was sold and purchased by defendant No. 1 for Rs. 40 only, his decree being for Rs. 348 odd. The plaintiff brings this suit under Section 283 of the Civil Procedure Code for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The defendant pleaded that the purchase of the plaintiff was benami for the debtor and fraudulent.2. The first Court held that the purchase was not benami, and that there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew of the decree or the suit and decreed the plaintiff's suit.3. The learned Subordinate Judge has set aside the decree of the first Court holding, that although consid...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »