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.
Midnapore Zemindari Co., Ld. Vs. Muktakeshi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal402
Mookerjee and Holmwood, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for bastu (homestead) rent. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that as crops were cultivated on a part of the bastu and the udbastu adjoining thereto, the suit was triable exclusively by the Revenue Court under Section 139, Sub-section (3), Clause (a) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The Court of first instance overruled this objection, and decreed the suit on the merits. Upon appeal, the District Judge has reversed that decision on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court. In our opinion this view cannot be sustained.2. Section 139, Clause 3, provides that all suits for arrears of rent due on account of agricultural land, whether subject to the payment of rent or only to the payment of dues which are recoverable as if they were rent, shall be cognizable by the Deputy Commissioner, and shall be instituted and tried under the provisions of this Act, and shall no...
Maharaja Ram Narayan Singh Bahadoor Vs. Krishna Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.490
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, the Raja of Ramgarh, in a suit for recovery of possession of land, for damages, for perpetual injunction and for incidental reliefs. The first eight defendants are alleged to be jagirdars under the plaintiff. The ninth defendant is the manager of the estate of the first eight defendants under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act of 1876. The remaining defendants, ten in number, are members of the firm of Bird and Company, who have obtained a prospecting lease from the manager with a view to open up mines and quarries. The case for the plaintiff is that the jagirdars are incompetent to grant a lease or a license in respect of mines and quarries as they had no underground rights whatever; he further asserts that the jagirdars held under the condition that if they failed to pay rent according to the prescribed instalments or disputed lawful orders and rules, the villages would be forfeited. It is also stated that the defendants have gran...
Godhan Ram Bhakat and ors. Vs. Jaharmall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.583
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first two defendants in a suit of a novel description. The events antecedent to the litigation are not in controversy and may be briefly narrated. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant acted as his agent from 1903 to 1907. The plaintiff had, in the name of Kali Das Raghunath Das, started and carried on a business which consisted in the purchase and sale of sundry articles. The first defendant, who was employed to look after this business, as agent of the plaintiff, advanced Rs. 300 the third defendant for purchase of paddy. The latter, failed to perform the contract; the result was that in 1908, the first defendant sued him for damages for breach of contract. During the pendency of this suit in the Court of first instance, the plaintiff terminated the agency of the defendant. He did not, however, himself intervene in the suit then pending, which was tried in due course and decreed on the 28th March 1908. On appeal, this decree was affirme...
Midnapur Zemindary Co. Ld. Vs. Muktakeshi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.776
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for bastee (homestead) rent. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that as crops were cultivated on a part of the bastee and the ud bastee adjoining thereto, the suit was triable exclusively by the Revenue Court under Section 139, Sub-section (3), Clause (a), of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1903. The Court of first instance overruled this objection and decreed the suit on the merits. Upon appeal, the District Judge has reversed that decision on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court. In our opinion, this view cannot be sustained. Section 139, Clause 3, provides that all suits for arrears of rent due on account of agricultural land, whether subject to the payment of rent or only to the payment of dues which are recoverable as if they were rent, shall be cognizable by the Deputy Commissioner and shall be instituted and tried under the provisions of the Act, and shall not be cognizable in any oth...
Shaikh Latafat HossaIn and ors. Vs. Kumar Kamlanand Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.586
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that the disputed lands form their milik lakheraj and are neither chit mal lands situated within the zemindary of the first party defendants nor included in the tenancy of the second and third party defendants. There was a subsidiary prayer in the plaint for declaration that certain entries in the Record of Rights were erroneous. In the Court of first instance, no objection was taken to the competency of the Civil Court to entertain the suit; it was tried out on the merits and decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Upon appeal, the District Judge has dismissed the suit on the authority of the decision in Jogendra Nath v. Krishna Promoda Dassi 12 C.W.N. 1032 : 35 C.1013 : 8 C.L.J. 322 though he has expressed an opinion that he agreed with the Court of first instance as to the effect of the evidence of the surveyor and the proof of adverse possession for much more than twelve years by the plaintiffs. In the present ...
Baijnath Vs. Ahmed Musaji Saleji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal219,18Ind.Cas.978
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The rules appear to be in conflict with the provisions of the Act, and to that extent are inoperative.2. If the Court holds the rules are bad, and that an order should be made for filing the awards, the awards should be taken to be filed as of date, so that we may have an opportunity of raising our objections to the awards.Jenkins, C.J.3. This appeal arises out of an application preferred as far back as the 11th of July 1908, whereby it was prayed that an order should be made that certain awards be filed in Court under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899. The respondent formulated his objections in an affidavit, but the principal ground on which the application failed before the learned Judge by whom it was heard in the first instance was that the whole proceedings in arbitration were ineffectual, because the submission was insufficiently stamped. We cannot accept that view. The parties have stamped their document in accordance wit...
Lachmi NaraIn and anr. Vs. Dhanukdhari Prosad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.351
1. The plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2 were mortgagees of a certain revenue paying estate. In execution of the mortgage-decree obtained by the plaintiffs, they purchased one of the mauzahs situated in the estate named Khazaserai on the 19th May 1900. On the 7th January 1901, the entire estate, consisting of Khazaserai and another lekhiraj property Patirha, was sold for arrears of Government revenue. After payment of the arrears, a surplus of about Rs. 2,454 was left with the Collector and the defendant No. 1 who was the registered owner withdrew the surplus on the 31st March 1904. On the 2nd July 1905, the plaintiffs applied to the Collector for the payment of the surplus to them as representing the mortgaged property which they had already purchased in execution of the mortgage-decree. This application was rejected on the 4th August 1909 on the ground that the money had been paid out to the registered proprietor. The plaintiffs brought his suit on the 23rd May 1907 for the recovery...
Khedon Lal and ors. Vs. Rajendra NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.70
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof with mesne profits. The property in dispute covers an area of 247 bighas, claimed by the plaintiffs as part of their Mouza Judia, and by the defendants as part of their village Koriaputti. The Subordinate Judge found upon the question of title that approximately one half of the disputed area fell within the estate of the plaintiffs. With reference to the question of limitation, he found that as the land was subject to inundation by the water of the river Kosi from time to time, the burden was upon the defendants to establish that the title of the plaintiffs had been extinguished by adverse possession on their part. Upon the evidence, he held that the defendants had failed to establish such adverse possession for the statutory period; and in this view, decreed the suit in part. Both the parties were dissatisfied with this decision and appealed...
Eastern Mortgage and Agency Co. Ld. Vs. Rakea Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.202
1. These two Appeals, Nos. 355 and 356 of 1912, are directed against two orders passed by the Subordinate Judge of Backergunge in two mortgage suits brought by the present appellants, the Eastern Mortgage and Agency Company, Limited, against the defendants-respondents, Rokea Khatun, widow of the late Tajamal Ali Choudhury, and others to recover the principal and interest due on two mortgage bonds executed by Tajamal Ali Choudhury and others on the 18th September 1896 and the 9th September 1897 respectively. The former bond covered a loan of Rs. 8,800 and the latter a loan of Rs. 3,50,000 and contained a proviso that Rs. 1,00,000 should be afterwards lent if the conditions under which original loan was made were complied with. One of the conditions imposed in the mortgage-deeds was that Messrs. Garth and Weatherall were to be appointed managers on behalf of the mortgagors of the mortgaged properties and that they were to pay off the mortgage-debt with interest out of the profits of the ...
Digambari Bewa Vs. Joy Narayan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.223
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree made in accordance with an arbitrate award, on the ground that the award was made after expiry of the time prescribed by the Court. The matter in controversy between the parties was referred to arbitrators on the 29th February 1912 and they were directed to submit their award on or before the 15th March. On that date an application for further time was received from one of the arbitrators No express order for extension of time was made, but the case was adjourned to the 3rd April and a direction was given that this should be intimated to the arbitrators. This may be taken as au order for extension of time by implication. On the 3rd April, both the parties were absent; their Pleaders intimated to the Court that they had no instructions and that nothing had been received from the arbitrators. The Court ordered that the suit do stand adjourned till the 9th April for disposal; the parties to be ready with their evidence if no award was f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »