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.
Kali Charan Dutt and anr. Vs. Manodabala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.897
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order whereby the Court below has directed the consolidation of two suits commenced by the petitioners along with a third suit wherein the petitioners are defendants. It appears that on the 26th May 1910, the petitioners sued to recover a sum of Rs. 15,924 on a hat-chita said to have been executed on the 16th May 1906. On the 23rd September 1910, they commenced another suit to recover a sum of Rs. 13,085 on a mortgage-bond alleged to have been executed in their favour on the 16th May 1906. In the interval, some of the defendants had commenced a suit against the petitioners on the 11th July 1910 for accounts of a partnership founded on an indenture executed on the 17th April 1907. The petitioners are not parties to this document; but the case for the opposite party is that they were really interested in the partnership transaction. Daring the pendency of these three suits, one Manadasundari Dassi applied to be added as a party defendant in....
Mohadeo Prosad Sahu Vs. Gajadhar Prosad Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.459
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mozufferpur, dismissing a suit brought by a partner in a banking business for the recovery from the other partners of a considerable sum of money said to have been deposited in the bank in circumstances which may be thus described.2. The plaintiff's father, Ganesh, and his uncles, Gajadhar (the father of the first defendant) and Baldeo (the father of second, third and fourth defendants) were members of a joint Hindu family, which owned, inter alia, an ancestral bank. Ganesh died in 1886, and it was thereafter, in 1893 apparently, agreed that each of the three branches of the joint family should be entitled to draw a monthly allowance from the bank of Sections 750 for personal expenses. The plaintiff's allowances were, however, not required, and it was arranged through his mother, he using a minor at the time, that they should be permitted to accumulate with interest in the bank. In the meantime, disputes in t...
Mansaram Chakravarti Vs. Ganesh Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.383
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for partition of properties which, they allege, are owned and possessed by them jointly with the defendants. For oar present purpose, the properties may be divided into two classes; first, those that were included in a previous suit for partition, but were left undivided by the consent decree made therein; and, secondly, those that were not included in the previous -suit for partition. In respect of properties of the latter class, the defendants contended that the claim was barred under Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. The question, therefore, arises, whether one of two tenants-in-common, who has sued for partition of a part of the properties jointly held by them, is at liberty to bring a suit for partition of the remainder of the properties. Upon this question, the Courts below have adopted divergent views. The Subordinate Judge overruled the objection of the defendants and dismissed the claim on the merits, Upo...
Nabadwipendra Mookerjee Vs. Madhu Sudan Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.741
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof. The plaintiff alleges title by purchase at a sale in execution of a mortgage-decree. He further states that when he took delivery of possession through Court, he was opposed by the defendants, which led to a proceeding under Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. The plaintiff interprets the decision in this proceeding as adverse to him and asserts that he lost passession thereby; he, therefore, claims to recover possession from the defendants. The defendants resist the claim on the merits, put the plaintiff to the proof of his title, and allege that their possession was sustained by virtue of the proceedings under Section 335 mentioned in the plainly. The defendants also take the stereotyped objection, usually wholly frivolous, that there was no cause of action as against them. The Court of first instance proceeded to dismiss t...
Tarini Charan Sarkar and ors. Vs. Fakarannissa Chowdhueani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.459
Woodroffe, J.1. The first Court found that the kairni jote, which is called kotibari jote, belonged to Mr. Bray and had been purchased by the plaintiffs, and that there was no rebutting evidence, and it accordingly held that the plaintiffs, the appellants before us, had acquired good title to this jote. It then proceeded to deal with what is the real issue in this case, namely, whether the disputed lands are included in this jote. The manner, however, in which this question has been dealt with has raised some confusion. I would point out here that the question whether the land belonged to Mouzah Ramchandrapore or to Mouzah Deara Ramchandrapore is not material. If the disputed land covers Mr. Bray's jote, it is not material to inquire as to who the plaintiffs' landlords may be. The question is, did the lands in dispute form part of Mr. Broy's jote? Now, it has been contended that this is a question of fact, and that we are concluded by the findings of the lower Appellate Court. Those fi...
Jhuman Karti Vs. Debu Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.898
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to land and for confirmation of possession thereof. The plaintiff alleges that the landlord-defendants have fraudulently brought his property to sale, that they have collusively obtained delivery of symbolical possession through Court, and, that by reason of their unauthorised interference with his possession, proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, have terminated unfavourably to him. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff asserts that he has not lost actual possession of the land in suit and prays for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The claim was resisted on the merits, and also on the ground that the suit was not properly framed. The Court of first instance overruled all the objections of the defendants and made a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has not discussed the case on the merits but has held that, inasmuch as the plain...
C.E. Grey, Official Trustee and Execotor to the Estate of Manik Lal Se ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.110
1. The two appeals, Nos. 421 and 461 of 1909, are directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Hooghly in a reference made to him by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. It appears that Government proposed to acquire three plots of land in Ram Kristapur, Pergunnah Boro, in Howrah for the purpose of building a District Jail, Police lines and official residence. The lands were in what was described as Seal's Bagan and consisted of (1) Premises No. 36, Seal's Garden, Ram Kristapur, Howrah, and included a residence and compound covering an area of 21 bighas;(2) Premises No. 35 Seal's Garden Lane, Ram Kristapur, Howrah, being 7 bighas of land including a residence and compound, and (3) a parcel of Bastee land 15 bighas in area.3. The total of the three plots covered 43 bighas. An agreement was entered into on the 2nd October 1905 between Manik Lal Seal and the Collector of Howrah as representing Government by which Manik Lal Sea...
Gour Chandra Das Vs. Sarat Sundari Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal50
Cecil Brett and N.R. Chatterjea, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order passed, by the District Judge of Dacca on the 18th September 1909 refusing an application made by the present appellant for the removal of Sarat Sundari Dassi from the administration of the estate of Chaitan Krishna Poddar. It appears that the appellant and Sarat Sundari Dassi are related to each other as adopted son and adoptive mother, and that letters, of administration to the estate of Chaitan Krishna Poddar were granted to them after the death of the widow of Chaitan Krishna, in whose favour as the first beneficiary, under the will letters of administration had previously been granted. There was some difference of opinion between the parties at first, and, on the 31st August 1903, a compromise was arrived at and join administration was granted to both. On the 26th May 1909, tie petitioner made an application to the Court which contained several allegations against Sarat Sundari Dassi. Amongst them one was th...
Behary Lal Pandit Vs. NaraIn Misra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1912
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.127
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a declaratory suit. The plaintiff alleges that on the 6th April 1898, a Record of Rights was finally published in which the rent payable by the tenant-defendant was stated to be Rs. 80-12-6, that subsequently the entry was altered on the 9th September 1899 to Rs. 258-2 0, and, that, later on, when he brought a suit for rent against the tenant with a view to recover rent at the higher figure mentioned, his claim was disallowed by the District Judge and finally by this Court on the 1st February 1904. It was held on that occasion that the alteration of the record had been made without authority, and that consequently the plaintiff was not entitled to realise rent at any rate higher than what was admitted by the defendant, namely, the rate as entered in the Record of Rights finally published on the 6th of April 1898. The plaintiff, therefore, commenced this action on the 29th May 1906 for a two-fold declaration, namely, first, that the alt...
Gour Chandra Das Vs. Sarat Sundari Dasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.44
1. This is an appeal against, an order passed by the District Judge of Dacca on the 18th September 1909, refusing an application made by the present appellant for the removal of Sarat Sundari Dasi from the administration of the estate of Chaitan Krisna Poddar. It appears that the appellant and Sarat Sundari Dasi are related to each other as adopted son and adoptive mother, and that Letters of Administration to the estate of Chaitan Krisna Poddar were granted to them after the death of the widow of Chaitan Krisna in whose favour, as the first beneficiary under the Will, Letters of Administration had previously been granted. There was some difference of opinion between the parties at first and, on the 31st August 1903, a compromise was arrived at and joint administration was granted to both. On the 26th May 1909, the petitioner made an application to the Court which contained several allegations against Sarat Sundari Dasi. Amongst them one was of that she had taken hat chittas from vario...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »