Kolkata Court June 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.
ishan Chandra Nandi and anr. Vs. Gour Mohan Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.468
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the purchaser of a putni taluk under the Bengal Putni Taluk Regulation, 1819, for the recovery of khas possession of certain land within the putni from the appellants who are mirasdars.2. The case for the appellant, is that, although they are holders of a miras tenure, they were raiyats before they obtained that tenure and, now that the tenure is avoided by the sale under the Regulation, are entitled to resume the status of raiyats.3. It is, however, unnecessary for us to consider whether the raiyati rights of the appellants were affected by the creation of the miras tenure; for, even if the appellants are to be regarded as raiyats now, they are not protected from ejectment tinder Section 11 of the Regulation unless they are khudkasht (that is, resident) raiyats. This was expressly decided by this Court in Jogeshwar Mazumdar v. Abed Mahomed Sirkar 3 C.W.N. 13.4. Now, the lands in suit are situated wholly in Mauznh Kacharitola, as is stated...
Reazuddi and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.646
1. We are clearly of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute and a re-trial ordered upon the ground on which it was issued. When a Court draws up a charge under Section 325 read with Section 149, it clearly intimates to the accused persons that they did not cause grievous hurt to anybody themselves, but that they are guilty by implication of such offence, inasmuch as some body else, in prosecution of the common object of the riot in which they were engaged did cause such grievous hurt. Now, when these persons are acquitted of rioting, obviously, all the offences which they are said to have committed by implication disappear, and the defence cannot be called upon to answer to the specific act of causing grievous hurt merely because it may have appeared in the evidence; for the Court having already declared by its charge that they did not commit a specific act and not having given effect to the evidence for the prosecution by framing a fresh charge, the defence would not be justifie...
Lakhi NaraIn Shaw Vs. Dhanada Kumar Ghose,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.686
Regular Civil Appeal No. 16.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the respondents for ' the revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration, with a copy of the Will annexed, to the estate of Behari Lal Shaha. Behari Lal Shaha died on 17th March 1901, leaving three sons, Sakhi Lal, Lakshmi Narain and Hari Narain, a widow and two daughters. Sakhi Lal had attained majority at the date of his father's death, while the other two sons were minors. Hari Narain died a minor and unmarried. Sakhi Lal carried on his father's business and became very heavily involved in debts. The respondents, whose firm name is Multan Chand Doga, obtained a decree against him on the original side of this Court for Rs. 5,270 and costs, and applied for execution. It does not appear that any property has been actually attached. On 27th March 1909, the appellant Lakshmi Narain alleging that he had recently come of age applied for Letters of Administration to the estate of his deceased father, and propou...
Raslu Baksh Vs. the Municipal Board of Chapra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.796
1. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute on the first ground on which it was issued. It was not necessary for the learned Magistrate to put forward the plea that the powers of the Chairman had been delegated to the Vice-Chairman because that was not the point on which the Rule was issued. Bat if he did put forward such a plea, he' should have stated having regard to the ruling in Kherode Prosad Paul v. The Chairman of the Howrah Municipality 20 C. 448, that this delegation had. been lawfully made in writing; possibly as the first ground of the Rule had to do with the sanction in writing he may have meant that this delegation was made according to law. However, the Rule did not call upon him to show cause on that ground.2. The point in this case is that, supposing the Vice-Chairman to have authority, we have no reason to suppose he has not, he must sanction the prosecution in writing; and there is no such sanction on the record. The only evidence of sanction of prosecut...
Thakur Madan Mohan Nath Sahi Deo Vs. Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Sahi De ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.842
1. This appeal raises a question of first impression as to the construction of Section 123 of the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act, 1879. It appears that the respondent obtained a decree for rent against the appellant in respect of a tenure on the 19th April 1905. On the 28th November 1910, the application for execution now under consideration, was presented. The judgment-debtor, tenure-holder, had created, on a part of his tenure, encumbrances by way of maintenance grants in favour of his dependents. The properties of these maintenance holders were at the time under the charge of the Encumbered :, Estate Act Authorities. They applied for exemption of the villages comprised in the maintenance grants under Section 123 of the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act, 1879. Upon the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, the order of exemption was made by the Commissioner on the 30th March 1911. The question in controversy now is, what is the precise effect of this...
Mati Lal Karnani Vs. Darjeeling Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.844
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in an action in ejectment. The origin of the disputed tenancy has not been ascertained with absolute certainty. The case for the plaintiff is that the tenancy commenced about the year 1884, whereas the allegation of the defendant is that it is traceable to a period even earlier than 1882. The defendant, on the 16th June 1902, purchased the right, title and interest of one Abinas Chandra Neogi in the disputed plots, who held as a tenant under the Darjeeling Municipality. Abinas Chandra Neogi had, about the year 1883, purchased the property from a shoe-maker, whose occupation, it has been found, commenced some years prior to 1882. On this basis, it has been argued by the defendant that the origin of the tenancy must be traced to a period anterior to 1882. There is no substance, however, in this contention. The nature of the interest of the shoe-maker in one of the two disputed plots is unknown. It has not been proved even that he held as a ...
Lahar Singh Vs. Johan Munda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.418
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property. The plaintiff claims the disputed property as his, korkar land, from which he alleges to have been forcibly ousted by the defendant in May, 1904; he commenced this action on the 23rd December 1908. In the Court of first instance, the claim was resisted on the merits as also on the ground of limitation. The Court found upon the question of limitation in favour of the plaintiff bit dismissed the suit on the merits. The plaintiff appealed and convinced the Judicial Commissioner that the decision on the merits, in so far as it was adverse to him, was erroneous. The defendant-respondent did not urge that the decision upon the question of limitation was wrong. Under these circumstances, the Judicial Commissioner did not re-investigate the question of limitation but reversed the decision of the Court of first instance and decreed the suit.2. In the present appeal by the defendant, two ...
Manji Dutt Misser Vs. Kumar Kalanand Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.785
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof. In the plaint, as originally framed, claim was advanced in respect of four parcels of land, numbered 119, 120, 122 and 123 in the Record of rights. Before the trial began, the Munsif held a local inquiry, and in his presence, the plaintiff appears to have stated that, by oversight, plot No. 121 had not been claimed in the plaint. His case in substance was that he was under the impression, when he filed the plaint, that the lands comprised in Plots Nos. 121 and 122 had been recorded under one number, but he had subsequently found that the parcel had been divided into two plots and recorded under two numbers. Three days later, the Munsif drew up a record of the local investigation, which was shown to the Pleaders of the parties. This statement narrated that the plaintiff had claimed Plot No. 121 and had alleged that the matter had been omitted ...
Deokali Koer Vs. Kedar Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal704
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. This appeal raises the question whether the lower court has rightly held that sufficient Court-fee has not been paid on the plaint. Holding that it has not, the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit. On the appeal being opened, a preliminary objection has been raised that the memorandum of appeal is insufficiently stamped. The considerations involved in the objection are substantially those which govern the appeal.2. The suit has been treated by the plaintiff as one to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed; and so she contends, the proper fee both on the plaint and the memorandum of appeal is ten rupees.3. The prayers to her plaint are framed in these terms:Relief sought for-(i) That it may be declared that the Registered Deed, dated 1st June 1896, for Rs. 14,000, executed by defendant No. 9 in favour of the father and ancestors of the defendants Nos. 1 to 8, is collusive, nominal, invalid, fraudulent and without con...
Raj Krishna Dey Vs. BipIn Behari Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal245
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competence of this appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff seeks for declaration that he is a sole shebait of Lakhi Barahu Jiu and the principal defendant is not a shebait of the idol, and also for an Injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession, of the endowed properties. In the plaint as originally framed, there was no prayer for an injunction. Objection was, therefore, taken by the defendant to the effect that the suit was not maintainable in view of the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff then amended the plaint and inserted the prayer for injunction to which reference has just been made. He valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 11,005, but for the purpose of payment of court-fees valued the prayer for injunction at Rs. 1,000. He then paid Rs. 10 as court-fees for the declaration under Schedule II, Article 17...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »