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.
Port Canning and Land Improvement Co., Ltd. Vs. Roson Ali Mollah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.46
1. This Rule was obtained on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge of 24-Pergannahs complained against should not be set aside as not in accordance with the provisions of the law as 'laid down in the Suits Valuation Act and the Court Fees Act. It appears that the opposite party instituted a suit in the 3rd Subordinate Judge's Court at Alipur in which he prayed that his maurasi mokarari right in certain lands be declared and a decree passed against the present petitioners for directing them to grant him a lease. The yearly rent payable on the lease was Rs. 71 but the plaintiff, opposite party in this Rule, valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 1,100. The Subordinate Judge, when the suit came before him, held that the valuation was incorrect. He held that, under the provisions of Section 7 Clause (x) Sub-clause (c) of the Court Fees Act, the proper valuation in a suit between a landlord and tenant for delivery by th...
Jital Singh and ors. Vs. Raja Kamaleswari Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.614
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order by which the Court of appeal below has discharged an order of the primary Court granting a temporary injunction. It appears that the landlord, opposite party, obtained an order under Sub-section (5) of Section 70 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and proceeded to execute it by an application to the Civil Court, The petitioner thereupon commenced a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for a declaration that the order of the Revenue Authorities had been passed without jurisdiction and was illegal and inoperative. During the pendency of this suit, an application was made, under 'rule 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of 1908, for a temporary injunction to restrain the landlord from executing the order in question. The Court of first instance granted this application. Upon appeal, the District Judge has discharged the order on the ground that a Civil Court is not competent to stay execution of an order made by the Revenue Authorities. In suppor...
Aman Gazi Vs. Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.64
1. This is one of the numerous suits brought by the Maharaja of Tipperah, in which he seeks for a declaration of his title as zemindar, to and for khas-possession of, the lands in dispute or in the alternative for assessment of rent.2. The District Judge in the Court below has considered the question of limitation and has held that the suit is not barred under the provisions of the statute. The facts are, that the defendant on the 11th February 1895 set up a title before the Settlement Officer according to which he claimed to hold the lands in question rent-free. No actual decision by the Settlement Officer was brought to our notice: but the record-of-rights, which was finally published on the 9th of July 1906, contains entries to the effect that the defendant was a settled raiyat in the village, and that no rent had been assessed in respect of the lands in question. If the time when the tenant first made his claim is considered as the starting point of the period of limitation, the su...
Konnormal Oswal and anr. Vs. NabIn Chandra Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.228
1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain lands. The lands were sold to the predecessor of the defendants at an execution sale following a money-decree on the 5th of January 1893. The sale was confirmed in March of the same year. An application was made by the judgment-debtor to set aside the sale. It failed in the first Court; but on appeal the sale was set aside by an order of the 14th June 1893. The auction-purchaser was no party to the appeal in which the sale was set aside. The first question, therefore, which arises is whether the title which vested in the auction-purchaser in consequence of the execution sale was ever taken away from him. The case of Surendra Mohini Debi v. Loharam Chattopadhaya, 16 C.W.N. 570 : 14 Ind. Cas. 67 is an authority for holding that the auction-purchaser was not a necessary party to those proceedings. The present case, however, is distinguished from that one by the fact that before the sale was set aside, it had been confirme...
Jarip Khan and anr. Vs. Durfa Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.476
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit whereby the plaintiff prays that his jote and darjote rights may be declared to the lands in suit and that a decree for khas possession may be passed in his favour.2. The plaintiff in this case does not rest his claim on any prior possession that has been established, bub solely upon a document. That document is a sub-lease by a raiyat purporting to create a permanent tenancy. It, therefore, purports to create a term exceeding nine years. Section 85 Sub-section (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides that a sub-lease by a raiyat shall not be admitted to registration, if it purports to create a term exceeding nine years.' The duty, therefore, incumbent on the Registrar, when such a document is presented to him. is not to admit it to registration. This duty is brought pointedly to the notice of the Registrar by a rule of the Registration Department which prescribes that when a sub-lease executed by a raiyat purporting to create a t...
Rakhal Das Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.655
1. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute on the ground upon which it was issued. As a matter of fact, the order expires on its own force in the next three days and, therefore, there is not much occasion to set it aside now. But we wish to emphasise the clear distinction between interfering with the rights of private proprietors with whatever ulterior motive they may do acts which they have a right to do and the perpetration of wrongful acts by such proprietors. The law as regards preservation of public peace is based upon an apprehension that either certain person or persons are likely to commit breach of the peace by their own acts or that they are likely to do wrongful acts which may occasion other people to commit breach of the peace. And the question whether Section 144, 107 or 145 should be utilised for the purpose is, a matter within the discretion of the Magistrate. What we want to point out is that holding of a hat on a man's own property is not, in itself, a w...
Mati Lal Chandra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal1053
Holmwood and Imam, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the 2nd Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta who has convicted the appellants Mati Lal Chandra and Promotho Lal Chandra of transporting excisable articles from Chandernagore to Calcutta under Section 46, Act V of 1909, and of being in possession of excisable articles knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported under Section 52 of the same Act, both read with Section 55 of the Act, and sentenced them under Section 57 to a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, or in default to one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts are as follows: There is a manufactory of drugs known as the Indian Pharmacy Co. situate in French territory at Chandernagore within the compound of the distillery of the French Government. This factory is ostensibly owned by a lady named Giribala Dassi, widow of the gentleman who originally started the business.3. The accused persons are her nephews, and the first is a pleader at Hooghly, and the second...
Balaram Das Bhagat Vs. Raja Mukanda Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.370
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court of Appeal below has, in reversal of the order of the Court of first instance, directed execution to proceed on the basis of a decree obtained by one Taponidhi on the 25th June 1906, against the present appellant. An appeal was preferred against this decree by the defendant, and during the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff-respondent died on the 17th July 1906. The appellant thereupon brought on the record one Harekrishna as the representative-in-interest of the deceased plaintiff. On the 11th July 1903, a decree was made by consent of parties, in modification of the original decree. Mean while, on the 25th August 1906, the present respondent had applied for Probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by Taponidhi on the 17th July 1906. Probate was granted on the 2nd May 1908. On the 18th March 1910, the executor applied for execution of the decree of the 25th Jane 1906. The application was resisted on the ground tha...
Emperor Vs. Moti Lal Chander and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.961
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the second Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, who has convicted the appellants, Mati Lal Chandra and Promotha Lal Chandra, of transporting exciseable articles from Chander nagare to Calcutta under Section 46, Act V of 1909, and of being in possession of exciseable articles knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported under Section 52 of the same Act read with Section 55 of the Act and sentenced them both under Section 57 to a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or in default one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts are as follows: There is a manufactory of drugs known as the Indian Pharmacy Co., situate in French territory at Chandernagore within the compound of the Distillery of the French Government. This factory is ostensibly owned by a lady, named Giribala Dassi, widow of the gentleman who originally started the business.3. The accused persons are her nephews and the first is a Pleader at Hughly, the second a clerk in the office ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›