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.
Tekait Ajant Singh Vs. Sundar Mall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.567
1. This appeal is directed against two orders, the first made apparently tinder Rule 10 of Order XXII of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, and Rule 10, Sub-rule 2 of Order I, and the second made upon an application by the plaintiff for re-consideration of this Order. It appears that on the 27th August 1908, Takait Ajant Singh instituted a suit against one F.F. Christian for a declaration that the purchase of the right of redemption by the defendant had been made by him oat of the consideration money covered by a deed of conditional sale for the benefit of the plaintiff as his trustee and that the transaction had accrued to the benefit of the plaintiff alone. On the 26th September 1910, one Sunder Mall applied to the Court and stated that he had, on the 22nd June 1910, purchased from Tekait Ajant Singh and his son, Thakur Dal Narain Singh, the subject matter of the litigation. He prayed accordingly that he himself might be substituted in place of the original plaintiff, and that the pla...
Hariharnath Das Vs. Rajani Kanta Laik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.537
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs to set aside a putni sale held under Regulation VIII of 1819 The Subordinate Judge allowed the plaintiffs' claim and this appeal is presented by Hariharnath Das, defendant No. 2, who was the auction-purchaser.2. The facts are shortly as follows: There was a zemindari which consisted of 7-annas share of Mouza Sirsha and chak Belahari. It belonged to one Sham Chand Mundle and one Saroda Sundari Dasi in equal shares. On 28th February 1886, the zemindars granted a putni lease to Dhiru Mundle, the predecessor-in-title of defendants Nos. 3 to 8. Sham Chand sold his moiety of the zemindari, i.e., 3 1/2 annas to Ramkalpo Nayek, father of the plaintiffs, on 1st May 1885. Previous to this, the 3 1/2 annas share of Sarado Sundari had been purchased by Raja Ram Ranjan Chukrabarty, defendant No. 1, at a Court sale in April 1888. On 26th March 1891, Chayen Mundle, defendant No. 3 and son of Dhiru Mundle, executed a kabuliat in...
Chandra Madhab Barua Vs. NobIn Chandra Barua
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal108
Stephen and Richardson, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for accounts relating to the management of a certain forest mehal from 1293 to 1308. The management was conducted by one Chandra Madhab Barua on behalf of Nanda Kumar Barua, his nephew, who was his co-sharer as to the half of the property. The property got involved in debt, and it was agreed that the best way was for the defendant to take charge of it and to pay off the liability until the property was freed from debt. This state of things continued from the year .1293 to 1306. At a certain time in 1.298 the plaintiffs appear to have demanded accounts from Chandra Madhab of his dealings with the property. This demand was refused; at least it was never complied with. Some time after Nanda Kumar died. The business then came to an end in 1308, and this suit was brought on the 12th September 1904, which is a little less than three years after the termination, of the business. The Judge of the Court bel...
Majibar Rahman Vs. Muktashed Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal113
Carnduff, J.1. The appellant before us was the gomastha of the respondent. He was prosecuted by the respondent for criminal breach of trust under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of certain moneys collected in the course of his duty. The Magistrate before whom the case was being tried, suggested, after haying drawn up a charge, that the matter was one which might appropriately be settled out of Court. Accordingly the matter was settled out of Court. The appellant executed a mortgage-bond for the amount embezzled, and, though the withdrawal of the criminal prosecution is not mentioned in the instrument as forming part of the consideration, the prosecution was in fact dropped by the respondent after the execution of the deed, and the appellant was then acquitted or discharged. The suit out of which this appeal arises, was afterwards brought upon the mortgage-bond executed'' in the circumstances just described, and it has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendant...
Chandra Madhab Barua Vs. NabIn Chandra Barua Alias Chandra Kumar Barua ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.735
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for accounts relating to the management of a certain Forest Mehal from 1293 to 1303. The management was conducted by one Chandra Madhab Barua on behalf of Nanda Kumar Barua, his nephew, who was his co-sharer as to the half of the property. The property got involved in debt and it was agreed that the best way for the defendant was to take charge of it and to pay off the liability until the property was freed from debt. This state of things continued from the year 1293 to 1305. At a certain time in 1306 the plaintiffs appear to have demanded accounts from Chandra Madhab of his dealings with the property. This demand was refused; at least it was never complied with. Soon after Nanda Kumar died. The business then came to an end in 1308 and this suit was brought on the 12th September 1904, which is a little less than three years after the termination of the business. The Judge of the Court below has held that the suit is not barr...
Raghu Singh Vs. Shew Prosad Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.121
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Court of Appeal below, in concurrence with the Court of first instance, has refused an application for restitution under Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. The circumstances under which that application was made may be briefly stated. The respondents commenced an, action against the appellants on the 9th February 1903 for declaration of title to immoveable property, for confirmation of possession, and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed on the 31st August 1903 by the primary Court, in these terms: 'The plaintiffs do get confirmation of possession, and, in the alternative, khas possession.' Upon appeal, this decree was confirmed by the District Judge on the 19th February 1904. On appeal to this Court, the decree of the District Judge was set aside on the 2nd March 1906 and the case was remanded for re-consideration. The District Judge, on the 18th August 1906, again affirmed the d...
Krishna Charan Mohanti and anr. Vs. Mohasay Radha Kanto Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.410
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtors against an order of the District Judge directing execution to proceed against them on the basis of a decree made against their father. It appears that their father was the agent of the respondents and was liable to account for sums of money-received by him. On or about the 21st October 1895, the respondents called upon the father of the appellants to account for all sums received and to produce the amount in his hands in cash. This he failed to do. He thereupon acknowledged liability for the sum of Rs. 3,000 and executed a promissory-note payable on demand. A suit was subsequently brought on this promissory note and a decree obtained against the executant on the 13th November 1900. After the death of the original judgment-debtor, execution has been taken out against his sons, and their defence is that the ancestral property in their hands is not liable to be seized in execution of this decree, because it is based on a debt which mu...
Jogeshwar NaraIn Singh Vs. Roy Radha Raman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.543
1. This Appeal is directed against an order by which the Court below has dismissed what purports to be an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of 1908, for reversal of an execution sale, It appears that a mortgage decree was obtained against the appellant by the respondents on the 30th June 1903. The decree was subsequently affirmed by this Court on the 13th July 1905. Execution was taken out in due course upon application made on the 15th April 1907 and the sale took place on the 29th March 1908. On the 27th April following, an application for reversal of this sale was made on behalf of the present appellant, who was at the time an infant, represented by his mother as his guardian ad litem. The application was refused by the Court of first instance on the12th September 1908, and the order of dismissal was affirmed by this Court in appeal on the 18th December 1908. The appellant, it is conceded, attained majority on the 6th September 1909, and, on the 3rd May 1910, he pre...
Sheikh Nujebar Rahman Vs. Syed Muktashed Husain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.259
Carnduff, J.1. The appellant before us wag the gomashta of the respondent. He was prosecuted by the respondent for criminal breach of trust under Section 40S of the Indian Penal Code in respect of certain moneys collected in the course of his duty. The Magistrate, before whom the case was being tried, suggested, after having drawn up a charge, that the matter was one which might appropriately be settled out of Court. Accordingly, the matter was settled out of Court. The appellant executed a mortgage-bond for the amount embezzled, and, though the withdrawal of the criminal prosecution is not mentioned in the instrument as forming part of the consideration, the prosecution was in fact dropped by the respondent after the execution of the deed and the appellant was then acquitted or discharged. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was afterwards brought upon the mortgage-bond executed in the circumstances just described, and it has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendant...
Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. Annoda Mohan Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.586
1. The plaintiff, Maharajah Manindra Chandra Nandi, is the proprietor of two estates bearing separate numbers (Nos. 136-1 and 137) on the revenue, roll of the Rajshahye District. The tenure to which the suit relates comprises these estates and was created in the year 1251 (1841) as a patni taluk, the rent reserved being Rs. 27,C01 per annum. The kabulyat, dated 26th Ashar 1251, executed by the original holder, is recited and its terms are embodied, in the kabulyat dated 16th Srabun 1279 (1872), executed in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest by the father of defendants Nos. 1-3, Babu Mohini Mohan Roy, who had purchased the tenure in 1871. By these documents express power is given to the landlord in default of payment of any part of the rent due for any year to bring the tenure to sale under the 'provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819. It appears that the plaintiff made two applications to the Collector to sell the tenure under the Regulation, one in respect of the rent due...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »