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.
Gour Kishore Basak Vs. Chandra Mohan Bandopadhaya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.394
1. The present appeal is against an order of the first Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh, dated the 21st March 1910, rejecting an application of the judgment-debtor, appellant, to set aside a sale. The lower Court has found that with regard to plot No. 1, which is a revenue paying property, there was a little irregularity in publishing the sale of that plot inasmuch as the sale proclamation does not appear to have been affixed in the Collectorate. It also found that there was neither fraud nor collusion in the matter of the sale and that the judgment-debtor has not been able to show that the properties were sold at inadequote prices or that he had sustained substantial injury thereby.2. On behalf of the appellant, the following points have been taken before us in appeal:(1)That the properties have been undervalued and that the lower Court should have held that that was an irregularity sufficient to set aside the sale on the ground of substantial injury caused.(2) That as no time was ment...
Jogemaya Dasee Vs. Akhoy Coomar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal140,18Ind.Cas.954
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application for the review of a judgment dated the 8th May 1912. The matter is in my opinion an exceedingly unfortunate one. On the 6th of May 1912 the purchaser at a sale held by the Commissioner of Partition under the provision of an order of the 23rd of May 1910 applied to the Court that a reference should be directed to the Registrar of the Court to enquire and report under Rule 426 as to whether the vendor could make a title to the property. That order was made, and it was not then discussed as to whether the order was made in respect of an ordinary sale by the Court, or whether it was a sale out of Court. Subsequently an application was made to have that order set aside on the ground that it was ex parte. It appearing, however, from the records of the Court that the persons who had the carriage of the proceedings were not unrepresented, that application was dismissed, and now an application is made to review the judgment on the ground that the sale was n...
Syed Asad Reza Vs. Wahidunnessa Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1912
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.70
1. This is an appeal against an order by which the District Judge, in concurrence with the Court of first instance, has directed execution of a decree for money by the appointment of a Receiver. The respondent obtained a decree for money against the appellant as trustee of a wakf estate. In execution of that decree, the trust estate obviously cannot be sold. Payments have been made from time to time towards the satisfaction of the judgment debt but a considerable sum is still due. On the 16th April 1912 the judgment debtor paid Rs. 100 to the decree-holder and obtained an adjournment of the execution proceeding, on condition that the balance would be paid in the following month and in default of payment, he would raise no objection to the appointment of a Receiver. On the 16th May 1912 the judgment debtor defaulted to pay the money, and the Subordinate Judge accordingly appointed a Receiver. The judgment-debtor thereupon appealed to the District Judge, but to no effect. The order is ne...
Nanda Gopal Sinha Roy and ors. Vs. Srimati Pareshmoni Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.478
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal belonged admittedly at one stage to a person of the name of Kali Prosad Singha Roy. ON the 4th December 1864, he executed a deed of gift in respect of this property in favour of his daughter, Dhan Kumari Debi, on the occasion of her marriage. The sole question in controversy in this litigation is, whether the property has passed by inheritance to the defendants, the sons of the sister of the original owner, or to the plaintiff, the daughter of the donee. The Courts below have concurrently held, in favour of the plaintiff.2. In the present appeal, it has been argued by the defendants that the gift in favour of the daughter was limited for her life, and that, in any event, if there was an absolute gift in her favour, it was defeasible upon her death without male issue.3. In support of the first contention, reliance has been placed upon two circumstances, namely, first, that the grant was for maintenance; and seco...
Dharam Chand Boid and anr. Vs. Mouji Shahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.440
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside the decree in a suit for money dismissed by a Court of Small Causes. The sum claimed by the plaintiffs was due by the first defendant, Mouji Shahu, to a partnership, whereof Champa Lal and Hulas Chand were members. On the 11th April 1911, Champa Lal executed a deed of release whereby he gave up his claim to the business and declared that thenceforth the partnership would be conducted by Hazari Mal and Dharam Chand, the uncle and father, respectively, of Hulas. It is on the strength of this instrument that Dharam Chand and Hazari Mal seek to recover the sum due from the defendant. In our opinion, the claim can not be sustained. There was no assignment of the interest of Champa Lal in favour of the plaintiffs. The parties in fact tried to effect by a release what could be legally attained only by an assignment properly executed. It is well settled that title cannot pass by admission or relinquishment where the statute requires a deed of transfe...
Munshi Kali Sankar Sahay and ors. Vs. Maharajah Protap Udai Nath Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.708
1. This appeal is directed against an order made on the 12th May 1912, in proceedings for execution of a decree for possession, costs and mesne profits. The decree, in so far as it directs delivery of possession, has now become absolutely final. An application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decree has been refused, and an application to the Judicial Committee for special leave to present such an appeal has also failed. It is clear, therefore, that there is no answer to the prayer of the decree-holder for delivery of possession. But it is objected that possession was delivered as directed by the decree, on the 1st September 1911, and that, consequently, upon the authority of the decision in Hassan Raja v. Kailas Chindra Singht S.C.W.N. 49 there cannot be a second delivery of possession. There is, in our opinion, no substance in this argument. It need not be disputed that a decree can be executed only once, and if there has been a complete execution, a second a...
Ram Charan Das and ors. Vs. Joy Ram Majhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.825
Ashutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The subject-matter of this litigation is village Barmesha, which admittedly formed at one time part of the Estate of Bharat Majhi. On the 20th August 1875, Bharat executed a conveyance of the tenure in favour of his nephew Ramdhan, a son of his brother, Jogeshur. This conveyance, as has been found by the Courts below, was not intended to be a real transaction, and, during his life-time, Bharat retained possession of the conveyance; as also of the property. Ramdhan never set up any claim to the property during the life-time of Bharat, and in 1887, actually joined his uncle in a mortgage transaction, in which Bharat gave the property as security on the assertion that he was the owner thereof. Bharat died in October 1888 and left behind him a widow and an infant son Joyram, the plaintiff in this litigation. Upon the death of Bharat, his widow appointed Ramdhan to manage the disputed property, and it has been found concurrently by the Courts below that Ramdhan coll...
Sant Pershad Singh Vs. Sheo Narayan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.728
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal from order arises out of proceedings in execution. The application which initiated the present proceedings was one under Order XXI, Rule 90, to set aside a sale on the ground of irregularity. The case has been argued before us on the basis of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, which has been taken by both sides as a correct presentation of the facts, but it is maintained that the conclusion of law at which he arrived on those facts is erroneous. The facts found by the Subordinate Judge were succinctly and at the same time clearly placed before us by Mr. Mohendra Nath Roy in the course of his argument. His submission was that six separate facts were found: (1) that the notice required by Rule 66 has not been served; (2) that the proclamation had not been published; (3) that an inadequate price was stated in the proclamation; (4) that an inadequate price was in fact realized; (5) that the value of the properties would not exceed the amount under t...
Mahabbat Ali Chowdhury Vs. Shamsher Ali Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.703
1. This is an appeal from the original order of the District Judge of Chittagong dated the 4th January 1911, appointing one Makbul Ahmad Chowdhury, a joint manager of the property of two minors It appears that the original application was made by one Shamsher Ali, who is a grand. uncle of the minors, and that there was petition of objection put in by another grand-uncle of the minors, Mohabbat Ali Chowdhury. This petition was supported by another petition of objection filed by Nasima Khatun, the mother of the minors The learned District Judge appointed Mahabbat Ali Chowdhury the objector, as guardian of the minors property on the ground that he was equally related to the minors and that he had been managing the minors' property and paying their revenue. But the District Judge also thought it better to appoint another man as joint guardian with Mahabbat Ali. One Jan Ali was selected for this purpose but he refused to act as a guardian on which on the 4th of January 1911 Makbul Ahmad Cho...
Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi Vs. Kulsamannessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.847
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by he plaintiff for enhancement of the defendant's rent. The plaintiff is the present owner of a separated 10-anna share of a certain estate. This 10-anna share was in the year 1885 carved out of a separated 12-annas share of the same estate, the latter share and the 4-annas share having been formed into separate estates in the year 1341 as the result of a partition by metes and bounds. Subject to the estate, there was a tenure and it may be conceded that when the separated 12-annas share of the estate wag divided into two parts, the separated 12-annas share of the tenure subordinate to it was also divided into two tenures, so that five-sixths of the whole 12-annas came to be held as a separate tenure under the 10-annas proprietor and the remaining one-sixth as a separate tenure under the 2 annas proprietor. In 1885, the- 10-annas proprietor brought a suit against the holders of the five-sixths share of the tenure for rent. He obtained a decr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »