Kolkata Court April 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.
Babar Ali Biswas Vs. Shishir Kumar Bose Roy Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.574
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the lower Appellate Court in certain execution proceedings. It appears that a suit was brought by the father of the two respondents in the present appeal and by his brother, Sudhanaya Roy, against the present appellant and a decree was obtained on the 9th September 1907. In October 1907, corresponding to 5th Kartik 1314 B.S., a sum of Rs. 200 was admittedly paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holders. Afterwards, Sudhanaya Roy, the brother of the father of the respondents, brought a partition suit against his brother Sital Roy and, in his plaint, he alleged that Sital had not entered in the assets of the family property the decree which they had obtained on the 9th September 1907 against Babar Ali. Sital, in his written statement, put in an objection to this allegation. He said that, at the time when this decree was obtained by the two brothers against Babar Ali, there was enmity between them and Babar Ali, that afterwards Babar Ali...
Ganesh Chandra Adak Vs. Banwari Lal Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.345
1. The point which has been raised for our determination in this appeal is whether a decree-holder, who has prior to the decree obtained an order for attachment before judgment and after decree has made one application for execution which has been dismissed, can afterwards in execution of the decree sell the property of the judgment-debtor in respect of which the order of the attachment had issued without obtaining a fresh order for attachment under Order XXI, Rule 57, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case, the decree-holder had applied under the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII, Civil Procedure Code, and had obtained an order of attachment before judgment. Afterwards, he was granted a, decree and put in an application for execution. Sub-sequently, in consequence of his default-., that application was dismissed and another application was made for execution of the decree by sale of the property and this is now the subject of the present appeal.2. Both the lower Courts held ...
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Ahmed Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.479
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in an action for declaration of title to immoveable property and recovery of possession thereof. The plaintiffs-respondents allege that they are under-tenure-holders and have been deprived of the lands comprised in their tenancy by the appellant, the Maharajah of Tipperah, who obtained a decree for rent against the superior tenure-holder on the 29th February 1884 and in execution thereof purchased the properties on the 6th February 1888. The Courts below have found in favour of the plaintiffs upon the question of the existence of the under-tenure. They have also found that it was necessary for the defendant to annul the under-tenure in the manner prescribed by the Bengal Tenancy Act and that he has not complied with the requirements of the statute. The sole point in controversy thus is, whether it was obligatory upon the defendant to follow the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and whether by reason of his failure to do so, the ...
MohurruddIn Khan and ors. Vs. Sumbra Giri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.540
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action for rent. The case for the plaintiff was that the lands in respect of which rent is claimed were held by one Ishan Chandra Das as tenant, that in execution of a rent-decree obtained against him the holding was sold and purchased by one Khoyarunnessa and that the defendants as her heirs are liable for rent. The defence taken was that these lands did not belong to Ishan Chandra Das but were held by the defendants in their own right as tenants under the plaintiff. The point in controversy between the parties, therefore, was whether the holding belonged to Ishan Chandra Das as alleged by the plaintiff or to the defendants in their own right, as alleged by them The Courts below have found in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the recital in the writ of attachment in the proceedings in execution of the rent-decree. It has been contended before us, on the authority of the decision in Ramani Pershad Narain Singh v. Mahanth Adai...
Banamali Chowdhury Vs. Ram Kinkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.575
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action to eject the defendants who hold under a lease, dated the 31st May 1886. That lease, on the face of it, embodies a permanent settlement for agricultural purposes, and the defendants have been in occupation of the disputed land thereunder from the date of the settlement up to the present time. The plaintiff, however, contends that he is entitled to eject the defendants by virtue of the following clause in the lease: 'Be it further -stated that if I myself take up cultivation in future, that is, after twelve years, then you shall give up the said land to my cultivation.' The question, therefore, arises whether this condition is operative in law. In support of the view that it entitles the landlord legally to terminate the tenancy at any time after the expiry of twelve years from the commencement of the lease, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Judicial Committee in Bhagwan Sahai v. Bhagwan Din 12 A. 387 : 17 I.A....
Bakaullah Mollah and ors. Vs. Debiruddi Mollah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.707
1. The case for the plaintiff-respondent was that he had previously purchased some land from one Jadunath Pramanik and that, hearing that Jaduuath was inclined to sell the 17 bighas, 9 cottas of land which form the subject of the present suit, and fearing that Jadunath would not consent to sell the land to him because, after the purchase of the other land, there had been a quarrel between them, he instructed one Umar Ali to purchase the 17 bighas, 9 cottas of land for him from Jadunath. The purchase was made in the name of Umar Ali by a conveyance dated the 17th Jaisth 1311 B.S. and the price paid is stated to have been Rs, 250. After the conveyance had been executed, it is stated that Jadunath discovered that the plaintiff was the real purchaser and refused to have the document registered. It was, however, eventually registered at the instance of Umar Ali; but Jadunath had, in the meantime, conveyed the land to the defendants Bakaullah and others, who were put in possession and refuse...
Shyam Chanran Bhattacharya Vs. Naba Chandra Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.708
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises relates to certain properties left by Kali Kinker Chakravarty, deceased. Kali Kinkar had two daughters. The plaintiff, Shyama Charan Bhattacharya, is the son of one daughter and the defendant, Naba Chandra Chakravarty, is the son of the other daughter. Besides his grandsons, Kali Kinkar left him surviving his widow, Brajeswari. The defendants, other than Naba Chandra, are with one or two exceptions admittedly in possession of various portions of the properties in question deriving title under conveyances executed by Brajeswari alone or by Brajeswari and Naba Chandra. The suit was brought to recover a moiety of these properties on the footing that at Brajeswari's death, which occured in 1263 M.E. (1904), the plaintiff and Naba Chandra were each entitled to a moiety as the reversionary heirs of Kali Kinkar. Naba Chandra did not enter appearance but the claim was contested by the defendant in possession. The lower Courts have concurred in dismis...
Godhanram Vs. Jaharmull Puglia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal335
Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first two defendants in a suit of a novel description. The events antecedent to the litigation are not in controversy and may be briefly narrated. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant acted as his agent from 1903 to 1907. The plaintiff had, in the name of Kali Das Raghunath Das, started and carried on a business which consisted in the purchase and sale of sundry articles. The first defendant, who was employed to look after this business, as agent of the plaintiff, advanced Rs. 300 to the third defendant for purchase of paddy. The latter failed to perform the contract; the result was that in 1906 the first defendant sued him for damages for breach of contract. During the pendency of this suit in the Court of first instance, the plaintiff terminated the agency of the defendant. He did not, however, himself intervene in the suit then pending which was tried in due course and decreed on the 28th March 1908. On appe...
Hem Chandra Sarkar Vs. Lalit Mohan Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.515
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage bond executed by the mother of the defendants, while they were minors, in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants' mother was their guardian appointed under Act VIII of 1890, but she did not obtain permission of the District Judge for the mortgage.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the mortgage bond was executed by the mother in her personal capacity. We are of opinion, however, upon a consideration of the bond as a whole that the mother executed the bond on behalf of her minor sons though it is not so mentioned in it. The statement in the bond that she would make over the mission granted by the District Judge to the mortgagee makes the point clear.3. A mortgage executed by a guardian appointed under Act VIII of 1890 without the permission of the Court is not absolutely void, but, as laid down in Section 30 (read with Section 29), it is only voidable. It has been held, in the case of Eastern Mortgage and Agency Co., Ld., v. Re...
Dukha Mandal and ors. Vs. W.N. Grant and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.467
Richard Harington, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under Section 103 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to rectify an entry made in the Record of Eights. On the (sic), the question is whether the Judge the lower Appellate Court acted contrary (sic) in accepting jamabandi papers which produced for the purpose of showing there had been a variation in the rent in respect of the holding at a time since (sic) Settlement.2. The tenants produced receipts for showing payment of uniform rent for 20 years. That threw on the landlords the onus of showing that there had been a variation since the time of the Permanent Settlement. They produced for that purpose certain jamabandi papers. The papers began as long ago as the year 1838.3. The argument that has been addressed to us is that the jamabandi papers by themselves have never been treated as an independent evidence, and that, therefore, the Judge of the lower Appellate Court was wrong in regarding them as evidence as to the rent variation ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »