Kolkata Court July 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.
Shiddheswari Dasya and anr. Vs. Shashi Bhushan Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.39
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit for recovery of possession. Bath the lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground of limitation and also on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title to the lands in suit.2. The points taken on behalf of the appellants are, first, that the suit was wrongly dismissed oh the question of title without ascertaining whether the lands belonged to the plaintiffs', or to the defendants' mouzah; secondly, that the onus was upon the defendants and that it was wrongly placed upon the plaintiffs by the lower Court; and thirdly, that inasmuch as it has been found by the lower Appellate Court that some of the lands in dispute were waste lands, the whole suit of the plaintiffs should not have been dismissed,3. It appears that there were two mouzahs, Mouzah Bijalbar and Mouzah Shukandighi, the former belonging to the plaintiffs and the latter to the defendants. The question before the lower Courts was whether the area in disput...
Sarat Chandra Chowdhury Vs. Keshab Chandra Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.422
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for rent. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of the appeal on the ground that it is barred under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The claim was for recovery of Rs. 99-14 15 gandas on account of rent, cesses and damages. Prima facie, therefore, the decree of the District Judge, passed on appeal, is final.2. But it has been argued on behalf of the defendants-appellants that the expression 'amount claimed in the suit' in Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act includes costs and interest. In our opinion, there is no foundation for this contention. The plaint, on the face of it, shows the precise amount claimed, as required by Order VII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that amount is less than Rs. 100 and determines the competency of the appeal. The costs of the suit are not part of the 'amount claimed;' if they were allowed to be added to the sum claimed, it would be, as Lord Chelmsford said in Doo...
Monmotha Nath Pal Vs. Girish Chandra Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.100
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for enforcement of a contract of sale. The case for the plaintiff is that he was the joint owner of Mehal Ruthpur which was said for arrears of revenue on the 26th March 1907. He alleges that he requested the defendant to watch the sale and to offer bids; the defendant agreed to do so, and to convoy the property to the plaintiff, should he be able to make the purchase. While the plaintiff was temporarily absent from the Collaborate, the property was put up to sales; the defendant offered bids in his own name and became the purchaser. Immediately on his return, the plaintiff asserts, he gave to the defendant Rs. 450, that is, one-fourth of the purchase-money, for deposit in the Collectorate; the sum was received by the defendant and was duly deposited. Later on, when the time arrived for deposit of the remainder of the purchase-money, the defendant proved false; he declined to accept the balance, got money from other persons and ...
Rai Ganpat Singh Bahadur and anr. Vs. Moti Chand Zemindar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.171
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the zemindars in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for apportionment of compensation money. The dispute is between the zemindars and the patnidars as to the mode in which the apportionment is to be effected. The Subordinate Judge has awarded the entire compensation money to the patnidars on the ground that as the zemindars have not allowed any abatement of rent on account of the land acquired, they are not entitled to a share of the compensation money. On behalf of the zemindars, it is argued in this Court, first, that as the patnidars did not get themselves registered in the book of the zemindars under the provisions of the Patni Regulation of 1819, their title has not been perfected and they are, consequently, not entitled to claim any portion of the compensation money; and secondly, that although no abatement of rent has been allowed by the zemindars to the patnidars, yet the zemindars are entitled to a share of the compensation money. In o...
Thakun Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Manrup Mahton and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.735
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the second party defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property. The plaintiffs claim under an usufructuary mortgage, executed in their favour by the admitted proprietor, the predecessor of the first party defendant, on the 29th March 1892. Their case is that they were entitled to possession of the premises under the terms of the mortgage contract that possession was delivered to them but that in 1906 the mortgagor unlawfully deprived them of possession. The plaintiffs lodged a complaint in the Criminal Court, which was dismissed on the ground that they had failed to prove their possession. This order was made on the 29th May 1906. The present action was commenced on the 13th August 1909. The second party defendant, who claims to be purchaser from the first party defendant under a conveyance, dated the 18th January 1908, impugned the genuineness and validity of the mortgage set up by the plaintiffs. The Courts below have found i...
Jetindra Kumar Chatterji and ors. Vs. Nritya Gopal Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.831
1. The decision of these appeals tarns upon the construction to be put upon the Will of Tara Prosad Banerjee, dated the 13th August 1902. Tara Prosad Banerjee died at Benares on the 20th April 1906, leaving his third wife, Durga Sundari Debi, and two grandsons, the sons of his daughter, Khetramoni Debi. One of these sons, Sarat Kumar Chatterji, has since died and is represented by his sons, Tarak Das and Durga Das, plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3. Plaintiff No. 1, Jitendra Kumar Chatterji, is the other son of Khetramoni.2. By his Will, Clause (2), the testator said: 'Upon my death, my wife Srimati Durga Sundari Debi shall get the taluks, rent-bearing, rent-fee, and Jabd Bahali (confirmed or held valid after resumption) lands and jamas, orchards, gardens, tanks, and cash money and Government Promissory-Notes, etc., and all other immoveable and moveable properties of which I am in possession and enjoyment gave and except the lands and the buildings mentioned in the schedule and marked with, the ...
Tara Chand Marwari Vs. Brojo Gopal Mukerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.747
1. This is an appeal by the third defendant against the decree in a mortgage suit The decree has been assailed substantially on three grounds, first, that interest at the contract rate ought not to have been allowed up to the date fixed for re payment in the decree, that is, the 22nd March 1911; secondly, that there should not have been a personal decree against the appellant; and thirdly, that in the accounts taken on the foot of the mortgage, the burden of the latrine taxes and the Municipal rate should not have been thrown upon the property in the hands of the appellant.2. In so far as the first ground is concerned, it is necessary to mention that the suit was commenced on the 2nd November 1905 to enforce a security which had been executed in favour of the plaintiff by the first two defendants on the 9th May 1902. The third defendant, now appellant before this Court, was joined as a party defendant, as transferee of an interest in the equity of redemption. On the 22nd December 1906,...
Prosonno Kumari Debi Vs. Ram Chandra Singha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.155
1. This appeal is directed against a decree whereby Letters of Administration, in respect of the debuttar properties of the Bishunpur Raj, have been granted to the respondent, to continue during the minority of her son. The properties were admittedly in the possession of Raja Ram Krishna Singh a down to 1889, when he died leaving two widows, the senior Rani Dhajamoni and the junior Rani Prosonno Kumari. Upon his death, Rani Dhajamoni became the shebait and managed the properties till 1892 when she died. It is alleged that, shortly before her death, she executed in 1891 an arpannama or deed of gift in favour of one Nilmoni Singh, who was thus constituted the shebait of the debuttar properties. This arpannama has not been produced or proved in this case, and the Court is, therefore, not in a position to pronounce any opinion upon the question of the execution of the alleged deed of gift by Rani Dhajamoni and its true legal effect. It is stated, however, that upon the death of Rani Dhajam...
Dinabandhu Nandi Vs. Mashuda Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.263
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff against a decree in a mortgage suit whereby a decree previously made therein under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act has been discharged.2. The plaintiff sued to enforce a mortgage security and obtained a decree on the 28th January 1897. This was not merely the usual decree for sale but also a personal decree against the defendant-mortgagor in the event of non-satisfaction of the mortgage dues by sale of the mortgage properties. That this decree was not in strict conformity with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act is clear from a long series of judicial decisions: Lal Behary v. Habibur Rahman 26 C. 166 : 3 C.W.N. 8; Raja Ram Ranjin v.IndraNarayan 33 C. 990 : 10 C.W.N. 862; Damodara v. Vyanku 31 B. 244 : 8 Bom. L.R. 199; Badri Das v. Inayat Khan 22 A. 404 and Abbake v. Krishnayya 32 M. 534 : 5 M.L.T. 246 : 4 Ind, Cas. 1120. The decree, for sale, was, however, repeatedly executed, and the mortgage properties were exhaust...
Bonomali Gaontia and anr. Vs. Padma Lochan Gaontia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.425
1. We are invited in this Rule to direct the registration of an appeal from original decree lodged in this Court beyond the time prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act. The decree of the Court below was made on the 28th November 1911, and was actually signed on the 1st December. The memorandum of appeal was presented in this Court on the 29th April, 1912. The circumstances, under which the appeal was presented out of time, are not disputed. The suit was for declaration of title and for recovery of joint possession of one half share of a village Adhapura and its hamlets. In the plaint, the plaintiff stated that the suit was valued at Rs. 3,075 for the purpose of payment of Court-fees, and was valued at the same sum for purposes of jurisdiction. There is no question that the valuation for purposes of Court-fees was in accordance with statutory possession. Under Section 7, Clause (5), Sub-clause (6), of the Indian Court F6es Act the Court-fee was payable upon five times the annual revenu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »