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.
Administrator General of Bengal Vs. Hughes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal192
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is a suit instituted by the Administrator General of Bengal for the construction of the Will of Dr. Henry Wilkin Jones, who died on the 8th July 1909 after having made and published his Will, dated the 14th April 1884 and four codicils dated the 22nd May 1901, 2nd March 1903, 15th December 1906 and 19th December 1908. The will and the first and second codicils were deposited according to the provisions of Section 105, Succession Act. The third codicil was registered, but was not deposited. The fourth codicil was neither registered nor deposited.2. It is contended by the next-of-kin of the testator Thomas Gill Jones that in so far as the fourth codicil was not executed twelve months before the testator's death and deposited within six months in some place provided by law for the safe custody of wills, according to the provisions of Section 105 Succession Act, the will and codicils are entirely inoperative, inasmuch as the will must be taken to have been made on the ...
Sukraj Roy Vs. Lal Bahadur Gope
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.34
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the landlord in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of the land held by the tenants respondents. The claim was allowed in part by the Settlement Officer, But upon appeal that decision has been reversed by the Special Judge. The landlord assails the decree of the Special Judge substantially on two grounds: namely, first, that in so far as he claims enhancement of rent on the ground mentioned in Section 30, Clause (6), of the Bengal Tenancy Act, namely, rise in the average local price of staple food crops during the currency of the existing rent, he should not have been driven to a separate suit; and secondly, that additional rent for excess lands should have been allowed under Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, notwithstanding the finding that the previous measurement made by the landlord in 1900 was not trustworthy. In our opinion, both these contentions must prevail.2. In res...
NabIn Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. Banga Chandra Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.705
1. This was a suit, for ejectment on the ground that the defendants were under-raiyats and had received proper notice to quit. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance on the ground that the plaintiffs held the land as proprietors or tenure-holders by virtue of Section 22. Sub-section (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as amended by the Eastern Bengal and Assam Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1908, and that, therefore, the defendants were no longer under raiyats but raiyats. The learned District Judge in appeal took the opposite view and decreed the suit. The defendants appeal.2. It is conceded by their learned Vakil that the appeal cannot succeed on the main point unless it is held that the amending Act so far as Section 22 is concerned, is held to have retrospective operation. Ha had referred to the statement of objects and reasons as showing that it was the intention of the Legislature to stop the acquisition of tenancy interests by landlords. But that statement does not show that...
Narayan Sahu and ors. Vs. Mohant Damodar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.464
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The appellant is a decree-holder and a purchaser in execution of his own decree. His complaint is that the sale in execution of this decree has been set aside on an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code though that application was made after the expiration of the period allowed by theLimitation Act. He also maintains that the order was erroneous OD its merits. The sale was on the 15th of December 1908; the application on the following 15fch of January. Article 166 of the Indian Limitation Act permits a period of 30 days only from the date of the sale for an application to set aside a sale in execution of a decree.2. The application in this case was admittedly made beyond this period, and the only answer proposed to this objection is that sec-18 of the Act gave the applicant an extended period. The sole question is whether this is made out.3. The Subordinate Judge has decided in favour of the judgment-debtor. In opposition to this, t...
Rahim Buksh Molla and anr. Vs. Hazi Ahmad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.9
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District. Judge of Dacca, dated the 2nd of January 1909.2. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, who are seven in number, against Rahim Bux Molla (defendant No. 1) and Abdulla, his son (defendant No. 2), under Section 539 of the old Civil Procedure Code, for the removal of Rahim Bux Molla from the mutwalb'ship of the mosque situated at Begum-bazar in the town of Dacca on the ground that he had otherwise mismanaged the trust properties, and that he was blind and infirm and was under the influence of his son (defendant No. 2), who was a man of bad character. It was further alleged that the defendant No. 1 and before him his father were members of the sect known as Rafa-yadain. The defendant No. 1 has now openly declared himself a Hanafite, and he has done this in consequence of certain resolutions passed at a meeting to remove him from the mutwalliship on the ground of his son's gross misconduct within the precincts...
Amrita Lal Bagchi Vs. Jogendra Lal Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal187,15Ind.Cas.707
Brett and Chapman, JJ.1. The only question which has been raised in support of this appeal is whether the District Judge was correct in the view which he took that the limitation applicable to the present suit was that provided by Article 120 of the second Schedule of the old Limitation Act, that is to say, six years. The suit was brought by the auction-purchaser to recover the sum of Rs. 1,600 from the defendant No. 1 who had, after the sale and the deposit of the money in Court, attached that sum in execution of his decree against the judgment-debtor as representing the surplus sale-proceeds belonging to the original judgment-debtor after satisfaction of the decree obtained against the debtor by the decree-holder. There can, in our opinion, be no doubt that the present plaintiff would be entitled to recover the money from the present appellant, who was the defendant No. 1 in the lower Courts, either by an application made under Order XXI, Rule 93, Civil Procedure Code, or as he has d...
Kali Prosonno Bhattacharyya Vs. Protap Singh Pattar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.965
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit to enforce three mortgages executed in his favour by the first defendant. The bond, earliest in point of time, was executed on the 11th January 1904, for a sum of Rs. 3,999, which carried simple interest at the rate of 11 per cent, per annum. The second bond was executed on the 6th April 1904 for Rs. 3,001, which carried compound interest at 9 per cent, per annum with annual rests. The last bond was executed on the 14th January, 1905 for Rs. 2,650 which carried compound interest at 12 per cent, per annum with annual rests. On the 1st May 1905, the first defendant deposited in Court the sum of Rs. 7,277-8 in full satisfaction of what he considered was due to the mortgagee at that time on the three bonds. The plaintiff ignored the deposit as insufficient in amount, and on the 30th June 1909, commenced the present action to enforce the three securities. Upon the first bond, he allowed credit in the plaint for Re. 2,944-13- 3, alleg...
Mohim Chandra Basak Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Rup Manjari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.213
1. This was a suit for ejectment. It was decreed by the Courts below and defendants Nos. 1 to 6 appeal.2. The first point taken on their behalf is purely technical, it is to the effect that the notice was not proved to have been properly served on all the defendants. It appears from the finding of the Munsif on this point, which has not been displaced by the District Judge, that the post-peon went to the family dwelling house with the notices for all the defendants. Several of the defendants were present and all those who were present saw the covers and refused to accept them. A notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, may be delivered to one of the family of the person intended to be bound by it or to his servants at his residence. The Munsif found, as a. matter of fact, that the appellants were members of the same family and the District Judge appears to have accepted this finding, for he says: I am satisfied that the post-man went to the family dwelling house of th...
Shashi Bhushan Gupta Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.996
1. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Noakhali to show cause why the conviction of the petitioners for having obstructed a channel should not be set aside on the ground that there is nothing to show that the channel in question is in the control and under the administration of the District Board.2. No one appears to show cause; but the District Magistrate has submitted a statement by the trying Magistrate in which it is pointed out, that there is on the record the evidence of the Overseer to the effect that the District Board has the channel on its books and has spent some money on its upkeep. We doubt whether that is sufficient to bring the channel, which is admittedly the private property of the petitioners landlords, under the control and administration of the District Board for the purposes of the Bengal Local Self-Government Act of 1885.3. Under Section 76 of that Act, a District Board may agree with the person in whom the property in any channel is vested to take ...
Ganendra Mchan Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Gya Prosad Tewari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.52
1. This appeal arises but of a suit for rent. It appears that the defendants in Chaitra 1304, executed a registered kabuliat in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the lands in suit. The term of this kabuliat was from 1304 to 1309, inclusive. It is said that subsequently in Assin 1810, the defendants obtained a letter from the plaintiffs' naib by which the rent was reduced from Rs. 37-8 to Rs. 37-3, on the ground that the entire land was not fit for cultivation. A condition is said to have been attached to this reduction of rent to the effect that it was dependent on the payments of the current arid back rents within a specified time. The suit was decreed by the Munsif at the rate of Rs. 37-3, and the plaintiffs' appeal to the District Judge was dismissed.2. The plaintiffs accordingly have appealed to this Court and on their behalf, three points have been taken. The first is that this letter on which the Courts below have relied was inadmissible in evidence and reliance has been p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »