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.
Gopal Mini Dasi Vs. Kali Charan Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.17
1. This appeal relates to the right to recover possession of some 80 bights of chur lands. The original action was instituted with regard to other lands also, and it was dismissed in toto by the Court of first instance holding that it was barred by limitation in that the plaintiff had failed to prove actual possession within 12 years of suit. This decision was reversed by the lower Appellate Court in so far as the 80 bighas already mentioned are concerned, and a decree was given to the plaintiff in respect of that area. The appellate decision has been assailed before us on one ground, namely, the ground that the District Judge was wrong in placing the burden of proof on the defendant. 'The land being land yielded up by a liver,' remarks the learned District Judge, burden of proof is on the defendant to show that possession was first taken of it by more than 12 years prior to the suit. Failing proof of this, the suit must be decided in accordance with the title to be presumed from the s...
Ranjit Missir Vs. Ramudar Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.940
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Court of Appeal below modifying, in favour of the plaintiffs- respondents, an order of the primary Court by which mesne profits were assessed in execution of a decree. The defendant- appellant assails the order as made without jurisdiction, because, it is contended, the only Court competent to hear an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, was this Court. This view has been controverted on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, and it has further been urged that, if it be taken to be well founded, the present appeal itself must be deemed incompetent. To appreciate the full effect of these conflicting arguments, it is necessary to refer for a moment to the previous history of this litigation.2. The plaintiffs sued the defendant in ejectment and for recovery of mesne profits. The claim was valued at Rs. 2,100, viz., Rs. 1,725 for the value of the land and Rs. 375 as the approximate value of the mesne profits for three years an...
Kumar Kulanand Singh and anr. Vs. Mohan Mandar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1912
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.500
N. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage bond dated the 16th February 1905 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff against the mortgagor and certain other persons who claimed interests in the properties mortgaged. The defendant 4th party had purchased some of the properties at a sale held in execution of a decree against the defendant No. 1 on the 4th January 1905 prior to the date of the bond upon which the plaintiff sued. The plaintiff, therefore, could not enforce his mortgage against the properties purchased by the defendant 4th party upon a bond executed by the defendant No. 1 at a time when his title to such properties had already passed to the defendant 4th party. He, however, claimed a lien upon the said properties under an earlier bond (sudhharna bond) dated the 23rd December 1901, which covered the properties purchased by the defendant 4th party.2. Both the Courts below have held that although the usufructuary bond dated the 23rd...
Bhupendra Kumar Chakravarti Vs. Pyari Mohan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.515
1. This is an appeal against a decree of the District Judge of the 24-Pergannahs reversing a decision of a Subordinate Judge and dismissing a suit for the recovery of possession of some 600 bighas of land in the Sundarbans. The plaintiff's vendor, Shama Charn Das, obtained from the landlord, the third defendant, on the 22nd June 1909, a permanent lease for the reclamation of a chak in the lot known as Jeha Khal; and the first defendant obtained a similar lease on the 12th August following, of two adjoining chaks, one to the north and the other to the east, of the chak, of Shama Churn Das. The plaintiff charged that the defendant had, by erecting an embankment south of the Bhardut Khal, which was fixed by the leases as the northern boundary of the former's chak and the southern boundary of the first of the latter's chaks, encroached upon, and wrongfully taken possession of, the land in suit. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree subject to the payment to the defendant of the ex-pe...
Bhikari Sukul and ors. Vs. Mohant Gadadhar Ramanuj Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.735
1. We are invited by the petitioners to set aside an order made in execution of a decree for money obtained against them by the opposite party, on the 30th May 1899, under the Bengal Rent Act, (X of 1859). The decree-holder has made successive applications, for execution and realised various sums from time to time. In the application whereby the present proceedings were instituted on the 20th May 1911, the decree holder prayed for sale of the moveable properties of the judgment-debtors, for the arrest of their persons, and, if the decree was not satisfied by these means, for the sale of their immoveable properties. The judgment debtors took exception to the application on two grounds, first, that it was not maintainable under Section 109 of the Bengal Rent Act, 1859; and secondly, that the claim for interest was not sustainable. The Court below has overruled these objections and directed execution to proceed. In this Court, the objections mentioned have been re-iterated.2. In support o...
Khitish Chandra Lahiri Vs. Versus Gerpa Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.878
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent based on a kabulyat dated the 5th Magh 1300 B. S. In that kabulyat, it was stated that the rent of the holding was Rs. 23 odd, that the sum of Rs. 14 odd was to be kept in abeyance and that for three years the tenant would be liable to pay the rent of Rs. 8 odd. At the end of that time, he was to take a fresh settlement and execute a fresh kcbulyat and if he did not do so, he was to be liable for rent at the rate of Rs. 23.2. The Courts below have held that this raising of the rent from Rs. 8 to Rs. 23 was not legal and have accordingly given the plaintiff a decree for rent at the rate of Rs. 8 odd.3. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court. It appears to us that the stipulations in the kabulynt, to which we have referred, area mere device to defeat the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Under that section the money-rent of anopcupancy raiyat...
Sheobalak Rai Vs. Bhagwat Pandey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal105
Holmwood and Imam, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Shahabad to show cause why the order under Section 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be set aside as wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Magistrate had not taken any evidence as was necessary in order to enable him to determine, if possible, who was in possession.2. Now, as regards the duties of the Magistrate under Section 146, it was laid down in the case of Mansar Ali v. Matiullah (1908) 12 C. W. N. 896 that the Magistrate in the absence of information might have himself held a local enquiry under Section 148 or in various ways might have informed himself as to the facts of the case; as lie had not done so it was held that he declined jurisdiction and the order complained of was set aside. This ruling has been followed by this Court in the experience of one of us who has been sitting upon this Bench for the greater part of two years, and has never as far as we know been differed from....
Mandhyan Sheikiya Vs. Badram Dalni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.441
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Assam Valley District. A decree was passed on the 16th April 1897. On the 22nd February 1909, execution was commenced and it was ordered that the land should be attached and proclamation should be issued, the 15th of April being fixed for the date of the proclamation. On the 15th April, the proclamation not having been made, an order was passed proclamation not filed, struck off.' In our opinion and under the circumstances of this case, this amounted to a dismissal of the attachment and if any further attachment proceedings were to be taken out, they would have to be taken before the 15th April 1909. No further proceedings were attempted until the 13th August 1909 when fresh proceedings for attachment were commenced. These further proceedings were out of time and, consequently, were infructuous.2. The result is that the order of the 16th February 1910, which by some oversight has cot been supplied to us, but which, (sic) under...
Sheobalak Rai and ors. Vs. Bhagwat Panday and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.486
1. This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Shahabad to show cause why the order under Section 146 should not be set aside as wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Magistrate had not taken any evidence as was necessary in order to enable him to determine, if possible, who was in possession.2. Now, as regards the duties of the Magistrate under Section 145, it was laid down, in the case of Sheikh Mansar Ali v. Mati Ullah 12 C.W.N. 896 : 8 Cr.L.J. 202, that the Magistrate in the absence of information might have himself held a local inquiry under Section 148 or in various ways might have informed himself as to the facts of the case; as he had not done so, it was held that he declined jurisdiction and the order complained of was set aside. This ruling has been followed by this Court in the experience of one of us who has been sitting upon this Bench for the greater part of two years, and has never, as far as we know, been differed from. There is a ruling in the case of ...
Bhagirath Samanta Vs. Prem Chand Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.852
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in a suit brought against him for accounts as an agent. The first defendant and the grandfather of the second defendant, on the 19th March 1888, executed a registered kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiffs by which they undertook to act as gomashtas for collection of rent and jointly promised to carry on the work. The agency continued for many years, till the appellant was discharged on the 11th June 1905. On the 27th May 1909, the plaintiffs commenced the present action. The claim was resisted on various grounds amongst which it is necessary to mention, for our present purpose, only one, namely, the plea of limitation. This was overruled by the Court of first instance and a decree made against the appellant, directing him to render accounts from the 14th September 1902 to the date of the termination of the agency. Upon appeal, that decision has been confirmed by the District Judge. On the present appeal, it has been contended that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »