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.
Giordano Vs. Giordano
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal215
Fletcher, J.1. This is a petition presented by Francesco Giordano, asking the Court to grant a decree dissolving his marriage with the respondent on the ground of her adultery. The case stood over for argument it appearing that the petitioner was an Italian subject, and that a question as to whether he retained his Italian domicile was set up on the evidence. It seems to me quite clear, first of all, that the petitioner is an Italian subject, notwithstanding Mr. Banerjee's statement that he has been enrolled in the civil force in this country and his allegiance to the Crown of Italy is not altered by such means. I have little doubt also that the petitioner retains his Italian domicile. His evidence is that he has no intention at present of returning to Italy. Under the circumstances, one has to consider whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant the petitioner a divorce under the terms of the Indian Divorce Act. Now, there can be no doubt that where the husband has a foreign domicile,...
Ram Borai Singh and ors. Vs. Mohendra Prosad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.73
1. The facts of this case appear to me to point so clearly 'to the result that should follow on the plaintiffs' claim that I think it is convenient to commence with a brief narrative of those facts. On the 21st May 1887, the plaintiffs' father executed in favour of Mussmmat Subhaga Koer a zur-i-pvshgi mortgage for Rs. 449-14. The mortgaged property was 11 bighas, 4 cottahs kasht land. On the 29th of January 1897, a second mortgage was executed of 8 bighas, 14 cottahs, part of the same piece of land--this time in favour of one Ramraj Singh by way of a zur-i-veshgi, and the mortgage amount was Rs. 576-15. Of this sum, Rs. 449-14 was left with Ramraj Singh for payment on the mortgagor's behalf to the prior mortgagee. In fact this payment never was made. What was done with the sum representing the difference between Rs. 449-14 and Rs. 576-15 does not appear. On the 25th of May 1895, the plaintiff executed an instrument of sale for Rs. 891 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 7. The property w...
Dwarka Nath Kundu Vs. Mohendra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.131
1. We are invited in this Bale to set aside a decree by which the Small Cause Court has dismissed the suit of the petitioners to recover money paid by them on the 16th August 1910, in satisfaction of a decree obtained against them by the defendant.2. The circumstances under which the suit was commenced may be briefly stated. On the 28th November 1907, a body of zemindars, who had been described as the Dutts, obtained a decree for arrears of rent against one Beni Madhab, the recorded tenant of a tenure. It appears that on the 21st May 1901, the present defendant, Mohendra Nath Roy, had purchased one-half share of the tenure from Beni Madhab while the other half had vested in the plaintiffs; the name of Bani Madhab, however, continued to be recorded in the books of the landlords. The result was that in execution of the decree for arrears of rent obtained by the landlords, they proceeded to bring the tenure to sale. The defendant, Mohendra Nath Roy, thereupon deposited the decretal amount...
Sailendra Nath Mookerjee Vs. Ram Sundar Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.885
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree of a Court of Small Causes on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction. The plaintiffs sued to recover money due on a hat chita alleged to have been executed in their favour by the defendants on the 29th January 1910. Monetary transactions between the parties and their predecessors appear to have been of considerable standing. The original hat-chita was granted in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. In that hat-chita, the parties were described as residents of Shibloon (within the jurisdiction of the Court of Katwa), and in the hat-chita on which the suit is brought the creditors are similarly described as residents of Shibloon. The money is alleged to have been advanced at Shibloon; the parties, at the time of the loan, were residents of that place where their ancestral housesare situated. Prima facie, therefore, the Court at Katwa has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter, under Section 20 Clause (c) of the Code...
Tarak Das Pal Chowdhry Vs. Harish Chandra Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.977
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made under Section 170, Sub-section (3), of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioner obtained a decree for rent against Bhaba Sundari and in execution thereof advertised the holding for sale. Thereupon the present opposite party made an application under Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and asked for leave to deposit the requisite amount. In the petition he alleged that on the 25th January 1884, he had purchased the holding from Trilochan Banerjee, the husband of Bhaba Sundari Debi, and had since that date been in occupation of the holding. The application was opposed by the decree-holder. His objection has been overruled on the ground that the applicant is a judgment-debtor within the meaning of Clause (3) of Section 170. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge but rejected on the ground that the appeal was incompetent and the order could not be revised by him under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. We are now asked to...
Naba Kishore Mandal Vs. Atul Chandra Chatterji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal150
Brett and Chapman, JJ.1. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the Bowali estate of which the proforma defendants Nos. 2 to 20 are also co-owners. The defendant No. 1 was appointed Common Manager of this estate by the District Judge of the 24-Parganas under the provisions of Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and he held that office from the 1st October 1905 to the 16th November 1908, when, he resigned. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on the 15th June 1909. The plaintiff states that he asked his co-sharers, the defendants Nos. 2 to 20, to join with him in bringing the suit but, as they refused, he made them proforma defendants. The allegations made in the plaint are of a very indefinite character. They suggest generally that, during the period of his management, the defendant No. 1 failed to include in his accounts all the items which ought to have been included, and that he had been guilty of laches and carelessness in the management whereby the plaintiff had suffered da...
Raj Krishna Dey Vs. BipIn Behari Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal251
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that he is the sole shebait of an idol Lakshmi Barahaji Thakur, and that the first defendant is not entitled to act as shebait, either jointly with him or separately. It appears that, on the 5th December 1888, in the coarse of a litigation between some of the present parties and the predecessors of the others, a petition of compromise was filed, by which the parties agreed to dedicate specified properties for the benefit of the idol. Under that petition of compromise one Nemai Chand Dey was appointed the first shebait. Twelve years later, on the 5th December 1900, the parties to the petition of compromise executed a deed of dedication, called an arpannama, by which the endowment previously intended to be created was confirmed. Under the arpannama Nemai Chand Dey was to continue as the shebait of the idol. It was further provided that, if the shebait was found guilty of neglect in the ...
Naba Kishore Mandal Vs. Atul Chandra Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.193
1. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the Bowali estate of which the pro forma defendants Nos. 2 to 20 are also co-owners. The defendant No. 1. was appointed common manager of this estate by the District Judge of the 24-Perganahs under the provisions of Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and he held that office from the 1st October 1905 to the 16th November 1903, when he resigned. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on the 15th June 1909. The plaintiff states that he asked his co-sharers, the defendants Nos. 2 to 20, to join with him in bringing the suit, but, as they refused, he made them pro forma, defendants. The allegations made in the plaint are of a very indefinite character. They suggest generally that, during the period of his management, the defendant No. 1 failed to include in his accounts all the items which ought to have been included and that he had been guilty of laches and carelessness in the management whereby the plaintiff had suffered damages, and the main...
Shajan Bibi Vs. EarsIn Dewan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.46
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of the 24-Pergannahs setting aside a judgment and decree of the Court of first instance and then passing the following order: 'That the lower Court do return the plaint as insufficiently stamped.' The plaintiff in the suit, out of which this appeal arises, sued to recover a certain sum of money, which she alleged she was entitled. to as a co-sharer in the estate of, and as the descendant of one Gazi Shaheb through her father. The defence set up by the defendants was that she had no title to the amount claimed. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was, as an hieress of Gazi Shaheb through her father, entitled to the money which she claimed as her share in the offerings and income of a certain dctr'ga and, therefore, gave her a decree for the amount claimed. On appeal, the learned District Judge raised a point which was never taken in the Court of first instance nor included in the grounds taken ...
Raj Krishna Dey Vs. BipIn Bihari Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.961
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that he is the sole shebait of an idol Lakshmi Baraha Jiu Thakur and that the first defendant is not entitled to act as shebait either jointly with him or separately. It appears that on the 5th December 1888, in the course of a litigation between some of the present parties and the predecessors of the others, a petition of compromise was filed by which the parties agreed to dedicate specified properties for the benefit of the idol. Under that petition of compromise, one Nemai Chand Dey was appointed the first shebait. Twelve years later, on the 5th December 1900, the parties to the petition of compromise executed a deed of dedication, called an arpannama, by which the endowment previously intended to be created was confirmed. Under this arpannama, Nemai Chand Dey was to continue as the shebait of the idol. It was further provided that if the shebait was found guilty of neglect in the performance of the worship or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »