Kolkata Court May 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.
Mohesh Chandra Shaha and anr. Vs. Rani Brindarani Chowdhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.529
1. This is an appeal against an order made in the execution of a mortgage-decree on the 6th April 1910, directing that the mortgaged properties should be sold in the order in which they stood in the sale proclamation. Since this order was made, the properties have been sold in. that order. That sale still stands although objections were taken to it not by the appellant now before us but by a third person. Now should the appellant succeed in making out that the order now before us is bad or improper, it would be futile for us to set it aside when that could not affect the sale which subsequently took place.2. We say nothing as to the merits of the case before us which, in fact, hare not been gone into. Bat we dismiss the appeal merely because the appeal, if it were successful, would be fruitless. The ' appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing-fee at two gold mohurs....
Tassaduk HossaIn Khan and anr. Vs. Abtab HossaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.334
1. This was a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court of Rangpore should not be set aside.2. The plaintiff in that Court purchased a certain property from the defendant for a sum of Rs. 400. He purchased it on conditions, one of which was that if the vendor could not let the purchaser into possession of the property sold', or if in future any one would lay claim to the property and dispossess the purchaser of it, then the vendor would refund the purchase-money with interest. Whether the purchaser did or did not get into possession of the property is not certain as far as the findings in this case go. But what did happen is that a third party attached the property in execution of a money-decree obtained against the vendor. There-upon the purchaser laid a claim which was eventually dismissed. He did not avail himself of his remedy under the law to bring a (suit to establish his title to the property in question; but brought th...
Bhoja Hari Paria Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.569
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made by the Court below on the 15th April 1912, under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. It appears that thirty-one suits were instituted under Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act; four of them were instituted in the Court of the Munsif, twelve in the Court of the first Subordinate Judge and the remaining fifteen in the Court of the second Subordinate Judge. Upon the application of the plaintiff, the cases were, shortly after their institution, transferred to the Court of the second Subordinate Judge. On the 19th September 1911, an application by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, praying that the under-tenants ought to be joined as parties defendants, was refused by the Subordinate Judge. On the 26th March 1912, the Subordinate Judge tried a group of eight cases and decreed the suits. One of the issues raised before him was whether the under-tenants were necessary parties; he held that althou...
Nagendra Nath Srimoney Vs. Jogendra Nath Srimoney and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.491
Fletcher, J.1. All that I am prepared to say is that on the petition coming on before me, it appears to me no sanction, is necessary to proceed against a Receiver appointed by the Court for a breach of the ordinary Criminal law of the country. The cases in which the sanction of Court has been held necessary are that class of cases, such as that reported as Fink v. The Corporation of Calcutta 30 C. 721 : 1 C.W.N. 706 where the Receiver was prosecuted as owner and occupier of certain premises held as in the possession of the Court, and the offence against him was under the Calcutta Municipal Act that the premises were in a state dangerous or unfit for human habitation. In that case, it was rightly held that the Receiver was not criminally responsible and the Court itself was in possession of the premises in respect of which the prosecution was instituted. In another case mentioned by Mr. Ghosh, an Advocate of this Court was prosecuted under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and Prins...
Jugal Kishore Marwari and anr. Vs. Bejoy Krishna Mukherjee and Ambika ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.683
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order under Rule 93 of Order XXI of the Code of 1908. The petitioners in execution of a decree against their judgment-debtor, one Bejoy Krishna Mukherjee, attached his house and the adjoining lands. Thereupon, one Ambica Debi, the mother of the judgment-debtor and the opposite party in this Rule, preferred a claim under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code on the 10th December 1909. Her allegation at the time was that the house and the land be-longed to her and that she. was in possession thereof in her own right. She did not, however, prosecute her claim, with the result that it was dismissed on the 9th April 1910. Execution thereupon proceeded on the basis of the decree, and on the 11th June 1910, the decree-holders purchased the property at the execution sale. They subsequently applied for delivery of possession, and on the 20th November 1911, symbolical possession was delivered to them. Later on, they applied for delivery of actual possess...
Mahiraja Sir Bijoy Chand Mahatap Vs. Rakhad Chattoraj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.601
1. The question of law raised in this Rule is, whether a decree under Rule 8 of Order IX of the Code of 1908, is an order of dismissal for default within the meaning of Sub-section 2 of Section 2 of the Code. It appears that the petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit for rent. 'When the suit came on for trial, an application was made on his behalf for adjournment. That application was refused, whereupon his Pleader stated that he had no materials in support of the claim. The Court did not dismiss the suit, as the defendants had admitted a part of the claim: and a decree was. made in terms of Rule 8 of Order IX of the Code. That decree is to the effect that the portion of the claim admitted by the defendant be decreed and that the remainder of the claim be dismissed. In oar opinion, this decree is not an order of dismissal for default within the meaning of Sub-section 2 of Section 2. Consequently; an appeal against the decree was competent. Such an appeal was preferred, but the Subordin...
Panchuram Tekadar Vs. Kinoo Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal56
Cecil Brett and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the lower Appellate Court confirming an order made by the Court of first instance in certain execution proceedings relating to mesne profits. It appears that the respondent in the present appeal obtained a decree against the present appellant for recovery of possession of a certain piece of land with mesne profits. It is alleged that the plaintiff respondent had been dispossessed on the 23rd Chait 1311, and mesne profits were claimed for the years 1312 to 1315. The suit was instituted on the 6th March 1907 in the Munsif's Court, and a decree was obtained by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the land in suit, together with mesne profits, from the date of dispossession up to the date of the restoration of possession, and it was directed that the amount of mesne profits would be determined in the execution proceedings. The decree was appealed against, but it was confirmed. The execution proceedings fo...
Shashi Bhushan Lahiri Vs. Rajendra Nath Joardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal82
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for probate of the will of one Adya Sundari Debi who bequeathed her properties to the three respondents who were her paternal relations and appointed them executors, one of them, Charu Chunder, being related to her as her half-sister's son. The appellant, Shashi Bhushan Lahiri, was the daughter's son of the great-grandson of the great-great-grandfather of Adya Sundari's husband, Ram Kanai Moitra. The appellant had applied for letters of administration 'to the estate left by Adya Sundari before the application for probate of her will was made by the respondents.2. Therefore, in the proceedings on the application for probate citation was issued upon the appellant, and he put in a petition of objections contesting the genuineness and validity of the will, and also alleging that the estate belonged to Adya Sundari's husband which she had no power to dispose of by will. The learned District Judge held that he was not entitled to...
Aktowli Vs. Tarak Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.266
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the tenants defendants in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. After the final publication of the Record of Rights, in which the tenants were entered as occupancy-raiyats, the plaintiff landlord applied under Section 105 for settlement of fair and equitable rents. The defendants resisted the claim principally on the ground that they held at fixed-rates of rant and their rent was, consequently, not liable to enhancement. This objection has been overruled by the Courts below and a decree made in favour of the plaintiff. In this appeal that decree has been assailed substantially on two grounds; namely, first, that the proceeding was not maintainable under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and that the proper remedy of the landlord was by way of a suit for enhancement of rent under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; and secondly, that the decision of the Settlement Officer, confirmed on appeal by the Special Judge, is baaed on e...
Shashi Bhushan Lahiri Vs. Rajendra Nath Joardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.225
N. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for Probate of the Will of one Adya Sundari Debi, who bequeathed her properties to the three respondents who were her paternal relations and appointed them executors, one of them Charu Chander being related to her as her half-sister's son. The appellant, Shashi Bhushan Lahiri, was the daughter's son of the great grandson of the great-grandfather of Adya Sundari's husband, Ram Kanai Moitra. The appellant had applied for Letters of Administration to the estate left by Adya Sundari before the application for Probate of her Will was made by the respondents.2. Therefore, in the proceedings on the application for Probate citation was issued upon the appellant and he put in a petition of objections contesting the genuineness and validity of the Will and also alleging that the estate belonged to Adya Sundari's husband which she had no power to dispose of by Will. The learned District Judge held that he was not entitled to oppose the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »