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.
Raj Mohan Guha Vs. Alam Gazi Patwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.279
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for rent. The plaintiff claims rent at the rate of Rs. 7-4 on account of 7 bighas and 5 cottahs of land in the occupation of the defendants. The defendants contend that they hold 5 bighas and 17 cottahs on a rental of Rs. 5-13-7 and, in support of their allegation, they rely upon an entry in a Record of Rights finally published on the 20th June 1904. The plaintiff, on the other hand, relies on that very record as subsequently amended by the Settlement Officer on the 2nd September 1907. The District Judge has refused to recognise the amendment of the record on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction. The question in controversy, therefore, is whether the alteration in the record was duly made.2. It appears that after the final publication of the Record of Rights, fair and equitable rent was settled on the 21st December 1905 in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, at the rate of one rupee per bigha. T...
Bechun Sahu and ors. Vs. Syed Ali Rasul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.614
1. This appeal is directed against an order of remand in a suit under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act of 1908 to enforce registration of a conveyance. The case for the plaintiff is that the father of the defendant executed the conveyance in question on the 3rd September 1909 that it was presented for registration eight days later, that although notice was issued upon the executant, he did not appear before the Registering Officer, and that finally the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document on the 4th. January 1910. The plaintiff thereupon moved the Registrar on the 17th January 1910. That application, after service of notice on the executant, was dismissed on the 17th February 1910. The present suit was commenced on the 17th March 1910. The defendant contends that the suit is not maintainable under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Ace inasmuch as the plaintiff proceeded under Section 72 instead of Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act. What happened was that ...
Lakshmi NaraIn Khanna Vs. Guru Datta Mehra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.859
1. This is an appeal on behalf of a surety against an order for execution made under Section 145 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. The circumstances under which the order in question has been made are of an unusual character and may be briefly stated. The respondent held a decree for money against one Guruditta Mehra. On the 4th February 1910, the decree-holder applied for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. This application was granted, and notices and the warrant were ordered to issue simultaneously. Later in the day, execution was directed to be stayed if the judgment debtor furnished sufficient security. On the next day, the Court recorded that the security-bond had not been filed and directed execution to proceed. The judgment-debtor was arrested that very day and brought before the Court. Thereupon, the following entry was made in the order-sheet: 'The judgment-debtor has been brought after being arrested. The decree-holder's Pleader states that the j...
Tookoomoni Dasi Vs. Dwarka Nath Dinda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.972
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order whereby the Subordinate Judge has affirmed an order of the Court of first instance, refusing to set aside an execution sale. The sale took place on the 15th November 1910, and the decree-holder became the auction-purchaser. The application to set aside the sale was not made till the 10th March 1911, that is, after the expiry of the thirty days prescribed by Article 165 of the Limitation Act, 1908. It consequently became necessary for the judgment-debtor to bring his case within Section 18. In order to do this, he alleged fraud on the part of the decree-holder both before and after the sale. The Subordinate Judge has declined to consider the question of fraud antecedent to the sale and has confined his attention to the question of fraud subsequent to the sale. In our opinion, the case has not been properly considered. No doubt, it cannot be laid down as an inflexible rule of law that proof of fraud antecedent to the sale necessarily i...
Kasimaddi Muhammad and ors. Vs. Shib Prosad Das Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.590
In No. 494 of 1908.1. This is an appeal by the defendants-appellants in a suit for rent. It appears that the plaintiff brought the present suit for rent op 21st April 1908. The Munsif decided that the question of the defendants' liability for rent was res judicita by reason of a decision which had been given in a previous rent suit brought by the plaintiff in 1900. He accordingly decree the suit at the rate of rent decided in the previous suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge and the District Judge decided that the question was not res judicita and remanded the suit to the Munsif under Order XLI, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code. Against that order, the present appeal is preferred.2. We are of opinion that the decision of the learned District Judge is not correct. The various rulings cited arid other rulings have been discussed before us on either side. The facts in this case are that, in the previous rent suit, in the Court of first instance the first issue raised was At wha...
Puran Chand Boid Vs. Surendra NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.795
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. The properties of the judgment-debtor Were sold at the instance of a decree-holder, Surendra Narain Singh, who is the opposite party in this Rule. Applications for rate-able distribution under Section 73 had been previously made by several persons, each of whom held a decree against the same judgment-debtor and had applied to the Court for execution of his decree before the receipt of the assets. As regards four of these-persons, the attaching decree-holder, Surendra Narain Singh, alleged that their decrees were fictitious and that they were in reality benamdars for the judgment-debtor himself. These decree-holders thereupon contended that the question sought to be raised could not be decided under Section 73. Their objection, however, was overruled upon the authority of the decision in Radha Gobind Shah v. Shaikh Oozeer Jemadar 15 W.R. 219. The Subordinate Judge then took ev...
Manik Chandra Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Preo Nath Kuar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.533
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Howrah and on the opposite party to show cause why the order passed under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, should not be discharged on the grounds, firstly, that the public who claim the right of easement for one day in the year cannot be a party to Section 145 proceedings, and secondly, that constructive conditional possession is not known to the law.2. We are of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute on both the grounds on which it was issued.' It is clear that if the public are declared to be in possession of any piece of land, then both parties to the dispute are included in that term and the possession, therefore, is joint possession and the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 145 is ousted. But this is an academical question. The principal question is whether a party, who do not claim anything beyond the right to worship on one day in the year and the right to make due and proper preparations for the holdin...
Pochai Meteh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal239
Holmwood, J.1. The question which arises upon this Rule is whether the provisions of Article 154 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or, in other words, whether that Section grants a right of appeal as laid down in Section 404 of the Code.2. Now Section 404 of the Code states very precisely that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of the Criminal Court, except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force.3. In order, therefore, to give a right of appeal, Section 195 must contain, in our opinion, within itself a distinct declaration that there is a right of appeal, and we can find no such declaration either expressly or by implication. It is true that a Full Bench of the Allahabad Court in the case of Hardeo Singh v. Hanuman (1903) I.L.R. 26 All. 244. held, in answer to an academic question, that the expression in Section 139 giving certain powers to a Court of appeal raised an...
Pochay Mitay Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.167
Holmwood, J.1. The question which arises upon this Rule is whether the provisions of Article 154 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or, in other words, whether that section grants a right of appeal as laid down in Section 404 of the Code.2. Now, Section 404 of the Cods states very precisely that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of the Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force.3. In order, therefore, to give a right of appeal, Section 195 must contain, in our opinion, within itself a distinct declaration that there is a right of appeal and we can find no such declaration, either expressly or by implication. It is true that a Full Bench. of the Allahabad Court, in the case of Hardeo Singh v. Ranuman Dat Narain 26 A. 244 : A.W.N. (1904) 10 : 1 Cr.L.J. 7 held, in answer to an academic question, that the expression in Section 439 giving certain powers ...
Era Apena and anr. Vs. Era Swami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.963
1. We are invited by the petitioners in this Rule to set aside a decree, so far as it affects them, in a suit brought against them and other persons for the balance of price of cloth sold. The allegation of the plaintiff is that on various dates between the 3rd June and the 21st August 1911, he sold goods on credit to one Gour Basna, the father of, the second and son of the first defendant; that Gour Basna did not pay for those goods in full and that the plaintiff was, consequently, entitled to recover the balance of price due. Gour Basna died on the 11th September 1911, and, the plaintiff commenced this action eight days later, not merely against the first two defendants, who are the representatives of Gour Basna, but also against three other persons on the allegation that the latter had fraudulently and wrongfully taken possession of the goods while Gour Basna was on his deathbed. The claim was resisted by these three defendants on the ground that as against them there was no cause o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »