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.
Jogabandhu Shasa and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.999
1. In this case a Rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, made in their favour should not be set aside on the ground that the petitioners had been put in possession of the property under a decree of a Civil Court.2. As, however, the decree in question was not a decree against the opposite party, there is, in our opinion, no ground for interference. The Rule was in fact issued under the misapprehension that the decree of the Civil Court was binding on the opposite party.3. The Rule is discharged....
Sundar Moni Dai Vs. Bangsidhar Patnaik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.900
1. This appeal is directed against an order appointing a guardian of the person and property of an infant under the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890. It appears that one Dayanidhi Patnaik died On the 8th August. 1908, leaving properties, moveable and immoveable, of considerable value. During the life-time of his first wife, Dayanidhi adopted a son. The adoption took place in 1899 and the adopted son, by name Bangsidhar Patnaik, is the minor in respect of whose person and property the guardian has been appointed. After the death of his first wife, Dayanidhi took the appellant, Sundarmoni Dei, as his second wife in February 1908. The position of the family at the time of the death of Dayanidhi, therefore, was that he left a widow, a daughter and an adopted son. On the 14th December 1903, the widow applied to be appointed guardian of the person and property of the infant son of her husband. This application was opposed by two relations of her husband, Durga Churn Mohapatra and Sree Krishna...
Musammat Parasania and Her Death, Her Heiress and Legal Representative ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.588
1. This appeal is directed against an order for grant of Letters for Administration to the estate of one Mahantha Ganga Dass who died in 1904. He appears to have left a widow, a daughter and a son though he is described as Mahantha; the son came into possession of the properties, and had his name registered in the Collectorate, and died in 1908. On the 20th September 1909, the respondent, claiming to be the chela of the deceased Mahantha, made this application for Letters of Administration. He stated explicitly that as an attempt had been made by the son of the deceased Mahantha to take possession of the estate, that is, the Asthol, a certificate might be granted to him under Act V of 1881. The District Judge granted the application because he was satisfied that the widow of the deceased Mahantha was endeavouring to keep the property as if it belonged to her husband personally. It is clear that this order cannot be supported.2. It was pointed out by this Court in the case of Mahant Jib...
Prasanna Kumar Mookerjee Vs. Srikantha Rout
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal173
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in an action in ejectment. The subject matter of the dispute is homestead land within the Bankura Municipality, originally held by one Gopal Chandra Mookerjee under a ghatwal. In 1878, the Collector, in execution of a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act made against Gopal Chandra Mookerjee, sold his right, title and interest in the homestead. Dwarkanath Mookerjee, now represented by his sons, defendants appellants, purchased the homestead, and jai the sale certificate granted to him the land was described as rent-free. The purchaser took possession of the homestead and never paid rent to the ghatwal; it has, indeed, been found that although Gopal Chandra Mookerjee held under the ghatwal, he never paid any rent up to the time when his interest was sold. In 1888, the ghatwal relinquished his office, and his son, the present plaintiff, then an infant four years old, succeeded as ghatwal Shortly before 1895,...
Bhima Rout Vs. Dasarathi Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal323
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the decree of dismissal in a suit commenced by the plaintiffs under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act of 1863. The case for the plaintiffs is, that they are interested in the endowment of Sarala Thakurani at Kutila in the district of Cuttack, that the endowment was under the management of a committee appointed under the Religious Endowments Act of 1863, that the sole surviving member of that committee (the first defendant) had neglected his duties and that the second defendant, who claimed to be the paricharak or superintendent of the temple, though he had never been formally appointed to the office, had misappropriated the properties of the endowment. Upon these allegations the plaintiffs prayed that the first defendant might be removed from the committee and the second defendant from the office of superintendent. The suit was defended by both the defendants. The allegations on the merits were denied by both, and...
Ashutosh Dhar Vs. Joy Lal Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.621
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants rent for the years 1309 to 1314. The plaintiff sues as the proprietor of an estate called '6 annas Mahmudabad,' which he purchased in 1882 in execution of a decree against the then proprietor, Uma Nath Choudhury. The defendants hold under a kabuliat, dated 7th December 1874 and executed by their predecessor, Pati Mahomed, in favour of Uma Nath Chowdhury. The kabuliat was in respect of 500 bighas of land and the rent agreed was Rs. 265-10-0 or 8 1/2 annas a bigha. The deed provided for re-measurement in 1289 B.S. (1882-83) 'with the prevailing rasi of the pergana' and for enhancement or reduction of the rent at the game rate in accordance with such measurement. It appears that in 1885 the plaintiff found one Amirulla in possession of the western portion of the land leased. This portion has for convenience been styled part B, in contradistinction to part A which remained in the possess...
Prosonna Kumar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Srikant Rant
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.365
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in an action in ejectment. The subject-matter of the dispute is homestead land within the Bankura Municipality, originally held by one Gopal Chundra Mukerjee under a ghatwal. In 1878, the Collector, id execution of a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act, made against Gopal Chundra Mukerjee, sold his right, title and interest in the homestead. Dwarka Nath Mukerjee, now represented by his sons, defendants-appellants, purchased the homestead, and in the sale certificate granted to him the land was described as rent-free. The purchaser took possession of the homestead and never 'paid rent to the ghatwal; it has, indeed, been found that although Gopal Chundra Mukerjee held under the ghatwal, he never paid any rent up to the time when his interest was sold in 1388, the ghatwal relinquished his office and his son, the present plaintiff, then an infant four years old, succeeded as ghatwal. Shortly before 1895, by...
Bheema Raut and ors. Vs. Durga Prosad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.908
1. This appeal is directed against the decree of dismissal in a suit commenced by the plaintiffs under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Ace of 1863. The case for the plaintiffs is that they are interested in the endowment of Sarala Thakurani at Kutilo, in the District of Cuttuck, that the endowment was under the management of a Committee appointed under the Religious Endowments Act of 1833, that the sole surviving member of that Committee (the first defendant) has neglected his duties, and that the second defendant, who claimed to be the Paricharak or Superintendent of the temple, though he had never been formally appointed to the office, had misappropriated the properties of the endowment. Upon these allegations, the plaintiffs prayed that the first defendant might be removed from the Committee and the second defendant from the office of Superintendent. The suit was defended by both the defendants. The allegations on the merits were denied by both, and the second defendant furth...
Kamala Kant Chaki and ors. Vs. Bejoya Kanta Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.639
1. The defendants were formerly the tenants of the plaintiffs in respect of a non-transferable ryoti holding. In 1897, the defendants mortgaged the holding byway of conditional sale and put the mortgagee in possession. It is clear from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge that he has found that the defendants then left the village without making any arrangement for the payment of the rent due to the plaintiff. On the 7th Falgun 1306, that is, in the year 1900 one Nabin Nath executed a kabuliyat in the plaintiff's favour for a term of five years, which expired before the present suit was brought. Two days after he acquired the mortgage interest from mesne assignee and he then entered into possession of the holding. He remained in possession till the year 1904 when the defendants brought a suit against him to re-deem the mortgage. In that suit they were successful and upon payment into Court of the sum due upon the mortgage, they were restored to possession. The plaintiff then brought t...
Deosaran Lal Vs. Sayedunnessa Begam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.58
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order for amendment of a decree, made on the 4th May 1912, under somewhat novel circumstances. The suit which was commenced on the 10th May 1904, against two persons, Gajadhar Lal and Rap Lal, was decreed on the 18th July 1905, The defendants preferred an appeal. The District Judge reversed the decision of the Court of first instance and remanded the case for re-trial, as, in his opinion, the defendants were entitled to plead a set-off. The records were received back in the original Court on the 16th March 1906. On that date, the 26th April following was fixed for the hearing of the suit. The plain-tiff did not enter appearance on the date fixed; and the result was that the suit was dismissed for default. It appears that one of the defendants, Rup Lal, had died on the 11th April 1906; but this was apparently not brought to the notice of the Court at the time when the order of dismissal for default was made. On the 30th April 1906, the plai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »