Kolkata Court July 1912 Judgments
Kumar Kalanand Singh and ors. Vs. Bibi Jarao Kumari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.238
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of a dar-patni tenure. The rent is claimed in respect of three years from the 13th April 1904 to the 13th April 1907, at the rate of Rs. 3,416 a year, with cesses at the annual rate of Rs. 316-9-0. The Subordinate Judge has decreed this claim in full. Upon the present appeal, that decree has been assailed on three grounds, namely, first that as the defendants made payments of patni rent to save the superior tenure from sale under Section 13, Clause (4), of Regulation VIII of 1819, the sum claimed by the plaintiff ought to be set-off against the sum so paid, with the result that the suit should be dismissed in its entirety; secondly, that the claim in respect of the period from the 14th May 1904 to the 16th September 1905 ought to be disallowed, because the defendants were kept out of possession of the property by reason of the unlawful conduct of the plaintiffs themselves; and thirdly, that credi...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Pargash Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.41
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The occasion of this appeal is a sale under the Bengal Lind Revenue Sales Act of 1859, and though there has bean much and prolonged discussion, the matter appears to me to admit of a very simple and short solution.2. The facts are not in dispute and I need not recite them. The plaintiff's grievance is that he is kept out of possession of a certain village and is wrongly kept out, inasmuch as the defendants erroneously claim to be entitled to that village by virtue of, the revenue sale to which I have alluded. The plaintiff's case is that though this village or a share in it to which he is entitled is an integral part of the revenue unit, in respect of which there were arrears, in fact it did not pass on the revenue sale. Notwithstanding the argument that has been addressed to us, I still think, as I did at the outset, that the Collector could only sell the revenue unit in its entirety. A Collector has not an innate power to sell. His power to sell is that which...
Tag this Judgment!Surya NaraIn Jha Vs. Banwari Jha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.7
1. This appeal is directed against a decree made under Section 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, in confirmation of an award of arbitration. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of the appeal, because under that section, an appeal does not lie from such decree except in so far as the decree is in excess of or not in accordance with the award. As the decree is not assailed on behalf of the appellants on the ground that it is in excess of or not in accordance with the award, the appeal is prima facie incompetent.2. It has been argued, however, on behalf of the appellant, upon the authority of the decisions in Indur Subbaramani Reddy v. Kandadai Rajamanner Ayyangar 26 M. 47 and Muhammad Abid v. Muhammad Asghar 8 A. 64 : (1886) A.W.N. 2. (4) 13 A. 300 : 18 I.A. 45 that inasmuch as the decree is assailed on the ground that there was no award valid in law, the appeal is competent. But this contention cannot possibly prevail, in view of the plain language of Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Masirunnissa Khatun Vs. Joy Chand Lal Boyed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.238
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahi, dated the 25th February 1911. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Mashrunnessa Khanum was the; plaintiff in a suit against some persons known as the Shaha. She obtained a decree. But on appeal the decree was modified by this Court in favour of the defendants in that suit. Before the disposal of the appeal to the High Court, the plaintiff realised the whole amount decreed to her by the lower Court from the defendants in execution. After the modified decree had been passed by this Court, the defendants applied to the executing Court for execution of their decree for costs and also for refund of the money levied from them in excess. In consequence of the decree of the High Court, the position of the parties was altered, that is, Mashirun, the plaintiff, became the judgment-debtor and the defendants became the decree-holders.2. It appears that on the application for refund of the money paid in ...
Tag this Judgment!Mane Muhammad Nasya and anr. Vs. Dhani Muhammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.22
1. The plaintiffs brought the present suit for the establishment of their title to six plots of land mentioned in Schedule (ka) of the plaint and also for khas-possession of those plots. There was also a prayer in the alternative to recover rent for those plots.2. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants were holding six plots arid one Subratu was holding another six plots of land under them. It is alleged that this Subratu abandoned his holding and went away to Bhutan Duars and that since then, the defendants have held all the twelve plots under a consolidated jama of Rs. 30 a year. They further say that they instituted Suit No. 461 of 1905 for rent against the present defendants, in which the defendants denied holding Subratu's jama and contended that their jama was only Rs. 16 per year and that that suit was decreed at the admitted rate. On the above facts, the plaintiffs brought the present suit.3. The defendant's main contention in the present suit is that the question of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Roy Chaudhuri Vs. Hara Kumar Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1912
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.748
1. This appeal arses a suit for accounts for a certain against an agent. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit as barred by tion, evidently under Article 89 of Schedule I of the Indian Limitation Act. It is contended before us that the lower Courts are wrong and that Article 132 and not Articla 89 is applicable to the, case. It is: true that the kabuliat of the agent: hypothecated cert in immoveable property, which would be answerable for any defalcation made by him or any damages, suffered: by the principal through his negligence, and there is conflict of authorities with regard to the applicability of Article 89 to a suit of this kind in such, a case. In the case of Hafezuddin Mondal v. Jadu Nath Saha 7 C.L.J. 270 : 35 C. 298 : 12 C.W.N. 820 it was held that in a case where there is a hypothecation bond of this kind, Article 132 is the right, Ariide to be applied. In the subsequent case oJr Jogesh Chandra alias Dhalu Qhose v. Benode-Lal Roy choudhry 5 Ind. Cas. 59 : 14 C.W.N. 122 i...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogirath Chandra Mandal and ors. Vs. Sital Chandra Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.15
1. This appeal arises out of an objection of the judgment-debtors, who are the appellants before us, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure that their raiyati holdings, which had been attached, were not saleable by local custom or usage without the consent of the landlord. Both the Courts below dismissed the objection of the judgment-debtors and they have now appealed to this Court.2. The proof that these holdings are saleable without the landlord's consent, depends entirely upon a passage in the evidence which has been quoted in the judgment of the first Court. The view of that portion of the evidence taken by the first Court is accepted by the lower Appellate Court. The quotation of the evidence given in the first Court's judgment is this: 'There is a custom of the sale of raiyati jotes (meaning occupancy holdings) in the pergunnah. Without the permission of the zemindar, the jotes are being sold. If the purchaser pays rent, we take it and give receipt in the name of the old...
Tag this Judgment!The Eastern Mortgage and Agency Co., Ld. Vs. FakuruddIn Mahomed Chowdh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.849
1. These two Appeals, Nos. 279 and 280 of 1912, are preferred against orders passed by the Subordinate Judge of Barisal on the 6th May 1912, on applications made to him by the judgment-debtors in two suits, Nos. 358 and 359 of 1910, instituted in his Court and orders passed on the 5th and 6th June 1912, disallowing objections made to those orders by the decree-holders, the present appellants. The appellants, the Eastern Mortgage and Agency Company, Limited, were the plaintiffs in both these suits and, in each suit, they sought to recover money due on mortgage-bonds. In suit No. 358, they sought to recover the principal with interest on a mortgage-bond executed by the defendants, Fakuruddin Mohamed Chowdhuary and others, on the 16th August 1895, for Rs. 1,85,000, and in Suit No. 359, the same Company sought to recover the principal with interest on another charge for Rs. 60,000, created on the same properties as those covered by the mortgage-bond, on the 11th July 1900. The defendants i...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ahmed HossaIn Chowdhuri and ors. Vs. Abdul Karim Abu Ahmad Khan C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.3
Sharf-Ud-Din, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the orders of the District Judge, dated the 29th May and the 10th June 1912, should not be set aside and the suit proceeded with on the three grounds set forth in the petition.2. The two orders referred to in the Rule were passed by the District Judge in a suit tinder Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is now pending in his Court. The order, dated the 29th May 1912, runs as follows: It is necessary to enter into evidence regarding the compromise. The parties will inform the Court to morrow what evidence they desire to adduce The next order passerby the District Judge on the 10th June last is this: 'As regards the compromise matter, arguments of the plaintiffs were heard and of the defendants were heard in part, regarding the enforceability of the compromise, on points of law only, but it coming to light that the parties were at issue on certain questions of fact which it appeared necessary ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Sundar Singh Chowdhuri and anr. Vs. Chand Meah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.202
1. This was a Rule calling upon the judgment-debtor and the depositor to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be set aside on the ground that the depositor was not a person having in the holding an interest voidable on the sale. The order complained of runs as follows: 'One Chand Meah applies for depositing the claim in Court. He may deposit the claim within two days.' We are informed that this application was presented under Section 171 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. If that is so, it cannot be disputed that in passing this order the Munsif acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. He made no inquiry whatever apparently into the question whether the depositor had or had not any interest which would be voidable on the sale and he came to no decision upon the point. The learned Vakil for the petitioner has relied on the case of Nalini Behari Roy v. Fulmani Dasi 13 Ind. Cas. 487 : 16 C.W.N. 421 : 15 C.L.J. 388 as an authority for showi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »