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.
Sidhu Sahu and ors. Vs. Gopi Charan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.969
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for declaration of what has been called marfatdari title to an endowed property and for recovery of possession thereof. The case for the plaintiff is that the disputed property belonged to an idol Sri Kunjbehary Thakur, that Brojo Mohon Das, the last audhikary, was the spiritual father of the plaintiff, that upon his death in 1882, the plaintiff, though an infant, succeeded him as audhikary, that during his minority the endowment was managed by his spiritual uncle, Kanhu Charan Das. On attainment of majority, the plaintiff alleges, he attempted to take possession of the endowment and to manage it on his own behalf, but objection was raised by Kanhu Charan Das. The result was that on the 3rd March 1890, the plaintiff executed an ekrarnama by which he recognised the right of the defendants (now appellants) to intervene in the appointment and removal of the audhikary of the endowment. The story for the plaintiff is that he subsequ...
Nasir Mea Vs. Arman Ali Mea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.745
1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings taken under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.2. It appears that the plaintiff had obtained from the Revenue Authorities a settlement of four dags or plots numbered, respectively, 417, 418, 430 and 432. Subsequently, a settlement was made with the defendant of two plots numbered 557 and 558. The plaintiff, alleging that the plots had, in whole or in part, been wrongly included within the plots settled with the defendant, brought a suit for a declaration to that effect. Apparently, such a suit would lie notwithstanding the provisions of Section 154 of the Regulation; see the cases of Madhub Nath Surma v. Myarani Medhi 17 C.819 and Patan Maria v. Bhabiram Dutt Barua 24 C 239; 1 C.W.N. 94 and it has not been suggested that it is otherwise.3. The findings of fact of the lower Appellate Court obviously conclude the case save as regards the plots Nos. 417 and 418 in the plaintiff's settlement. As regards those, the claim has been dis...
Kanta Laik Vs. Lachman Ojha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.165
1. The substantial question in controversy between the parties to this litigation, relates to the true effect of an execution sale held on the 7th April 1902. The events antecedent to that sale may be briefly narrated. Prior to the year 1870, three brothers Chatradhar, Godadhar and Sarobar were in joint possession of the disputed properties on a jagir tenure under the Raja of Pachete. In 1878, default was made in the payment of rent, and on the 15th July of that year, the jagir was sold in execution of a rent-decree at the instance of the and lord, and was purchased by himself. Three suits for reversal of the sale were then commenced by the tenants, each in - respect of a third share of the property. The suit of Chatradhar abated, while those commenced by Godhadhar and Sarobar were dismissed by the Court of first instance on the 30th September 1893. Upon appeal to this Court, these two suits were decreed on the 2nd March 1896. The Raja appealed to the Judicial Committee only against th...
Raj Krishna Dey Vs. BepIn Behary Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.162
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of this appeal. The appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff seeks for declaration that he is the sole shebait of Lakhi Baraha Jieu, 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 thereupon 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 purpose 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(iii) and Rs. 75 for the in...
Deokali Koer Vs. Babu Kedar Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.427
Lawrence Jenkins, 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 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 this 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:RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR''(1) That it may be declared that the registered deed, dated 1st June 1596, for Rs. 14,000, executed by defendant No. 9 in favour of the father and ancestors of defendants Nos. 1 to 8, is collusive, nominal, invalid, fraudulent and without consideration; that...
Rajendra NaraIn Saha Vs. Satish Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.331
1. The appellant in this second appeal is admittedly the sole proprietor of the land in suit. The respondent and his brother Abhoy jointly held the land under him as occupancy-ryots. Abhoy's half share was transferred to the appellant, who, according to the respondent, thereupon proceeded to interfere with the latter's peaceful enjoyment of the property. The respondent, therefore, brought this suit against his landlord for a partition of the occupancy-holding. Both the Courts below have concurred in decreeing the suit, and the landlord has presented this second appeal.2. In support of the appeal, it has been contended, in the first place, that only permanent rights in property can be partitioned, and that, as an occupancy right is not a permanent right, there can be no suit for the partition of an occupancy-holding.3. As regards this, we are unaware of any authority in support of the proposition. So far as we know, any property held for the time being jointly can be partitioned between...
Ram Pratap Nemani Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal968
Holmwood and Imam, JJ.1. The question upon which this Rule was issued is whether a certain form of gambling which has become well-known in Calcutta as cotton-gambling comes within the provisions of Section 44 of Act IV of 1866 as amended by Act III of 1897 (B.C.).2. We may say at the outset that this is a pure question of law and has nothing to do with the nature and effect of the particular form of gambling now under consideration, which may be, and in our opinion is, a most pernicious form of gambling, and yet may not be rendered penal by the Act under which these convictions have been held.3. The offence which is created by Section 44 of the Calcutta Police Act is that of owning or keeping of being employed in a common gaming house, or advancing or furnishing money for the purpose of gaming with persons frequenting that house.4. The question then that arises in this case is whether the premises in which the defendant carried on this cotton-gambling is 'a common gaming house' within ...
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. A.H. Forbes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.180
Ashutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council against a decree of the District Judge in reversal of a decree of the Subordinate Judge, by which an action in ejectment commenced by him against the respondent has been dismissed. On the 11th November 1878, the Collector of Monghyr granted a lease to one John Christian in respect of a parcel of homestead land for a term of 27 years from the 1st April 1876. The lease shows, on the face of it, that this was not the commencement of the tenancy, and it is stated expressly that the grant was made upon the expiry of the term of the former settlement. In 1879, the lessee transferred his interest to one Ambler, who, in the same year, sold the property to Alexander John Forbes, now represented by the defendant. Upon the expiry of the term, the Collector made an offer to the defendant to renew the lease on certain terms specified in a draft. The defendant refused to accept a renewal on the terms proposed a...
Binapani Debi Vs. Sashibhushan Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.119
1. This appeal plainly does not comply with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. A copy of the decree was not attached to the memorandum of appeal as required by Order XLI, Rule 1(1); and when objection was taken by the Deputy Registrar, the learned Vakil for the appellant was instructed to state that, the decree had not been drawn up. The appeal was accordingly registered. As a matter of fact, it now transpires, the judgment was delivered on the 11th January 1910 and the decree was drawn up on the 15th January 1910. The appellant applied to the Court below for a copy of the judgment on the 1st February 1910. That copy was ready for delivery to her on the 5th February 1910. At that time, the decree was in existence. Consequently, there is no reason why an application should not have been made for a copy of the decree as well. The memorandum of appeal is thus not in conformity with the provisions of the statute which, it will be observed, authorises the Court to dispense with the...
Tulsi Mahato and ors. Vs. Chethree Lal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.379
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the defendants in a suit to enforce a mortgage security. The mortgage was executed on-the 23rd July 1897 by the first defendant and his four sons one of whom was an infant at the time. The sum secured Rs. 4,775, was re-payable on the 6th February 1898, and carried interest at the rate of nine per cent, per annum with annual rests. No payment appears to have been made, and on the 28th January 1910, a few days before the expiry of the period of limitation, the mortgagees commenced this suit to recover the mortgage-money with interest and costs The claim was resisted not by the executants of the bond but by six grandsons of the first defendant who had been made defendants as interested in the equity of redemption. They put the plaintiffs to the proof of the mortgage, and appear to have suggested that the debt, if any, was incurred under circumstances which did not make it binding upon them as grandsons of the first defendant and sons of the other three d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »