Kolkata Court August 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.
Bhicha Ram Sahu Vs. Bishambhar Nath Sahi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.957
Ashutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree of dismissal in a suit to enforce a mortgage security executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 21st October 1902 On the 17th August 1905, the first defendant was declared a dis-qualified proprietor under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, 1876, and his estate was vested in a Manager appointed under Section 2 of that Act. In answer to a notification issued by the Manager, the plaintiff preferred his claim before him on the 4th January 1906. On the 16th August 1906, the Manager determined that he was entitled to realise Rs. 6,843 on the bond and stated that an effort would be made to pay off his dues. The plaintiff, however, objected that Act VI of 1876 could not affect his claim under the bond, as the mortgaged property lay in the District of Shahabad beyond the limits of Chota Nagpur. The Deputy Commissioner, on the 24th October 1906, referred the plaintiff to the Civil Court for the dete...
Abdul Sawan Sheikh and ors. Vs. Nekbar Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.632
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action in ejectment. The plaintiff, as landlord of the disputed property, in 1898 sued his tenant, Basu by name, for arrears of rent. He obtained a decree and in execution thereof brought the property to sale, on the 6th Jane 1898, when it was purchased by one Shazad Mandal, who died in January 1909 and is now represented by the defendants. The plaintiff, on the 24th February 1909, commenced the present suit to eject the defendants on the ground that Shazad Mandal was an under-raiyat and had no heritable interest in the property. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not competent to the plaintiff, in view of the proceedings in execution of the decree for arrears of rent, to allege or to prove that Basu was an under-raiyat. Upon appeal, the District Judge has reversed that decision. In our opinion, the decree of the District Judge cannot possibly be Supported.2. The sale-certificate which was gran...
Dilan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal360,17Ind.Cas.570
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code of instituting false criminal proceedings before the Sub-Inspector of Fatehpore police station against one Fazal Hussain and others.2. It appears that there was some dispute about the possession of the village Manhona and the zamindari kutchery therein, between Karu Singh, who is one of the ticcadars of the village, and Amiral Hossain, who is a lessee from Kali Singh, another ticcadar. The accused, Dilan Singh, admittedly went to the thana and there lodged information before the Sub-Inspector, Rajendra Narain Varma, that while he was sitting in the kutchery Fazal Meah and others came there, caught hold of him, beat him, shut him up in a room in the kutchery and then set fire to the thatch of the kutchery building: that he raised an alarm and. the villagers came and rescued him. The Sub-Inspector, on enquiry, did not believe this story. The words of his final report are 'I...
Bhola Nath Roy Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal503
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title to land and for recovery of possession and mesne profits. There were three defendants in the action; the first was the Secretary of State for India in Council; the second was the Maharajah of Cossimbazar and the third was Jyoti Prosad Singh. The suit was commenced on the 17th December, 1909. The written statement on behalf of the Secretary of State was filed on the 12th April, 1910. In the first paragraph of this written statement, it was urged that notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 was not sufficient, proper and in accordance with law. The written statement of the second defendant, filed on the same date, dealt with the merits of the case. The third defendant filed his written statement a week later and supported the claim of the plaintiffs. On the 2nd May, 1910, the Court framed seven issues, which did not include an issue upon the question of ...
Bhola Nath Roy and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.849
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title to land and for recovery of possession and mesne profits. There were three defendants in the action; the first was the Secretary of State for India in Council; the second was the Maharaja of Cossimbazar and the third was Joyti Prosad Singh. The suit was commenced on the 17th December 1909. The written statement on behalf of the Secretary of State, was filed on the 12th April 1910. In the first paragraph of this written statement, it was urged that notice, under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, was not sufficient, proper and in accordance with law. 'The written statement of the second defendant, filed on the same date, dealt with the merits of the case. The third defendant filed his written statement a week later and supported the claim of the plaintiffs. On the 2nd May 1910, the Court framed seven issues, which did not include an issue upon the question of the legality, validity and s...
Joshua Vs. Arakie
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal266
Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff, Mozelle Joshua, is the widow of Aaron Raphael Joshua; and she has brought this suit to establish her right to Rs. 10,555 under an instrument, which she describes as a marriage settlement or ketuba. The defendants are Sophie Arakie, Aaron Raphael Joshua's daughter by a former wife, and the Administrator-General of Bengal, his representative under a grant of letters of administration.2. This ketuba came into existence on the marriage of the plaintiff with the deceased. A translation of it is annexed to the plaint.3. It opens with a narration of the bridegroom's proposal to the bride, his promise to feed and clothe her and endow her with 100 pieces of silver, her acceptance of his proposal, and their marriage.4. Then it is said the bride brought to her spouse 'ornaments of gold and silver and dresses totalling to Rs. 5,000 which he has accepted and wrote upon himself on the former and the latter also, in all Rs. 5,000. And he further agreed to add, out of hi...
Mozelle Joshua Vs. Sophie Arakie and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.132
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff, Mozelle Joshua, is the widow of Aaron Raphael Joshua; and she has brought this suit to establish her right to Rs. 10,555 under an instrument, which she describes as a marriage settlement or ketuba. The defendants are sophie Arakie, Aaron R. Joshua' s daughter by a former wife, and the Administrator- General of Bengal, his representative under a grant of Letters of Administration.2. This Ketuba came into existence on the marriage of the plaintiff with the deceased. A translation of the it is annexed to the plaint.3. It opens with a narration of the bride - groom's proposal to the bride, his promise to feed and clothe her and endow her with 100 pieces of silver, her acceptance of his proposal and their marriage.4. Then it is said, the bride brought to he spouse 'Ornaments of gold and silver and dresses totalling to Rs. 5,000, which he has accepted and wrote upon himself (sic) on the former and the latter also in all Rs. 5,000. And he further agreed...
Durga Prasad Singh Vs. Gosta Behari Nandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.545
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, the Raja of Jheria, in a suit for recovery of royalty due under a mining lease granted by his predecessor, on the 20th October 1898, to the second defendant, the Maharaja of Cassimbazar, in the name of the first defendant. The claim covers the period from the 14th April 1903 to the 16th October 1908. The controversy between the parties relates to the rate at which the royalty is payable, and must be determined upon a true construction of the first clause of the lease, which may be literally rendered as follows:In respect of the coal, which I may raise from the entire 1103 bighas 13 kottas of coal land in Mouza Ekra under Settlement and despatch or sell, I shall be bound to pay commission, that is, royalty, on steam coal, rubble coal, hard coke and soft coke at 3 annas per ton, and 1 shall pay commission for brick burning rubble and dust at 1 1/2 annas per ton. Be it known that I shall pay royalty, at the present fixe...
Madan Mohun Singh Vs. Raj Kishori Kumari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.182
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land, for declaration that certain entries in the Record of Rights are erroneous, for recovery of possession and, for incidental reliefs. The property originally belonged to the husband of the first defendant, who executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff on the 27th January 1886. The mortgagee sued to enforce his security on the 16th November 1898. The usual mortgage decree was made on the 20th February 1899. The property was sold in execution and was purchased by the decree-holder on the 19th September 1904. The sale was confirmed on the 22nd June 1905. The case for the plaintiff is that, during the pendency of the mortgage suit, the mortgagor settled a number of persons who are now defendants in this action on different portions of the land, and these persons later on had their names entered in the Record of Rights as tenants in occupation of the land. The plaintiff, therefore, prays for de...
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. Raj Kishori Kumari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.1
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land, for declaration that certain entries in the Record of Rights are erroneous, for recovery of possession and for incidental reliefs. The property originally belonged to the husband of the first defendant who executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff on the 27th January 1836. The mortgagee sued to enforce his security on the 16th November 1898. The usual mortgage-decree was made on the 20th February 1899. The property was sold in execution and was purchased by the decree-holder on the 19th September 1904. The sale was confirmed on the 22nd June 1905. The case for the plaintiff is that, during the pendency of the mortgage suit, the mortgagor settled a number of persons, who are now defendants in this action, on different portions of the land, and these persons later on had their names entered in the Record of Rights as tenants in occupation of the land. The plaintiff, therefore, prays for de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »