Kolkata Court September 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.
Umeshananda Dut Jha Vs. Sir Ravaneswar Prosad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.969
1. This Rule was granted upon an application by the high priest of the temple of Baidya Nath, who was elected to that office in execution of a decree of this Court, made in affirmance of the decree of the Court below in a suit under Section 539 of Code of Civil Procedure of 1832: Shailajananda v. Umeshanund 2 C.L.J. 460. Under that decree, a committee of three persons was appointed, of whom one has recently died and the other two are the opposite party to this Rule. Since the appointment of the committee, there have been differences between the members and the high priest upon questions of the management of the affairs of the temple. The result was that in 1909, one of the members of the committee applied to the District Judge for a modification of the scheme. The application was dismissed on the 29th March 1910. The matter was then brought up to this Court, and on the 8th September 1910, this Court, on the authority of the decision of the Judicial Committee in Prayag Das v. Tirumala 3...
Akhoy Kumari Debi Vs. Kanai Lal Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.618
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff and the only question to be determined is a question between her and the defendant No.7. The latter is a purchaser for valuable consideration of a four-fifths share of the property to which the suit relates. The question is whether he had notice, at the date of his purchase, of a registered instrument dated the 25th Bhadro 1300 (Exhibit 1). The first Court found that he had notice. In the lower Appellate Court that finding was reversed and the point of law which arises is whether or not on the facts found, it was possible for the learned District Judge to arrive at the conclusion at which he did arrive.2. For the plaintiff, it is not disputed that according to the view which has been taken in this Court the mere fact that the instrument was registered is not sufficient to affect the defendant No. 7 with notice of it. It is found, however, and indeed admitted, that before purchasing, the defendant No. 7 caused a search to be made at the Regis...
Nagendra Lal Chowdhury Vs. Srimati Raja Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.504
N. Chatterjea, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents hold certain permanent taluqs under the defendants-appellants who are the zemindars. The plaintiffs alleged that they hold the taluks on payment of certain money rents to the defendants; but that the latter took proceedings under Regulation VIII of 1819 in two successive years for realisation of the value of certain paddy rents which they said were payable of the taluks, and the plaintiffs in order to save their tenures from sale deposited the amount which the defendants claimed as the rents payable. The plaintiffs accordingly sued for a declaration that the taluks bear money rents as stated in the plaints, and not paddy rents, and for refund of the amount realised from them in excess of the proper rent under the proceedings under Regulation VIII of 1819.2. Both the Courts below have decreed the suits, and the defendants have appealed to this Court, and the only question raised in these appeals is whether the suits are barred by limitation...
Diwan Balmukund Sahai Vs. Tarini Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.343
1. This is a Reference under Rule 1 of Order XLVI of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. The question upon which our opinion has been sought is formulated in these terms: 'Whether in a suit for recovery of rent of a raiyati holding by one whose interest as landlord has ceased to exist before the institution of the suit, the period of limitation provided in Article 2(6), Schedule III of the Begnal Tenancy Act, is applicable or the period of limitation provided by Article 110 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908 should apply.'2. The plaintiff was an intermediate tenure-holder for a term, and the period of his lease expired on the 29th September 1909. On the 11th September 1911, he commenced this suit for recovery of arrears of rent which had accrued due to him before the expiry of his lease. The tenant contended that as the plaintiff ceased to be his landlord before the date when the suit was instituted, the provision of Article 2 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act could not apply. ...
Bhukhi Koeri Vs. Ram Khelwan Prosad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.646
N. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rent brought by the plaintiff, on the allegation that the lands, for which the rent was claimed, had been settled with the defendant No. 1. The latter denied the relation of landlord and tenant with the plaintiff and set up one Jagadambi as his landlord. The Court of first instance held that the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and the defendant and gave a decree to the plaintiff. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge disbelieved the story of the settlement of the land by the plaintiff with the defendant No. 1, as also the alleged settlement by Jagadambi set up by the defendant, and held that the position of the defendant No. 1 was no better than that of a trespasser, but that plaintiff's title was proved and that he was entitled to recover rent for use and occupation from the defendant No. 1.2. The defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court and the question raised in this appeal is whe...
Dalip Narayan Singh and anr. Vs. Chait Narayan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.927
1. These appeals are directed against two decrees in cross suits for the enforcement of mortgage securities. On the 20th April 1908, four persons, who maybe briefly described as the mortgagors, executed a mortgage security in favour of Dalip Narayan Singh and Balmiki Prasad for a sum of Rs. 15,539. The consideration for the mortgage comprised judgment-debts due from the mortgagors to the mortgagees, and also arrears of rent due in respect of leases granted by the mortgagees to the mortgagors. The mortgagees have joined as defendants not merely the mortgagors, but also junior incumbrancers. One of the defendant is Harak Narayan Singh, who claims under a mortgage-bond executed in his favour by the mortgagors on the 12th. October 1900. Prima facie, he is a prior incumbrancer, and, consequently, not a proper party to the mortgage suit, but the plaintiffs have joined him as a defendant as they claim priority against him. The suit was commenced on the 11th October 1909, and Harak Narayan die...
Raj Kumar Roy Chowdhury Vs. Alimaddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.911
1. The plaintiff, having purchased the lands in suit at a sale held in execution of decree for arrears of rent against one Iswar Saha, brought this suit for recovery of rent against the defendants on the basis of a kabuliyat, dated the 2nd Assin 1289 B.S., executed by Ali Mohamed, the father of the defendant No. 1, and two other persons in favour of the said Iswar.2. The defendants denied the relation of landlord and tenant between them and Iswar.3. The Court of first instance, referring to certain circumstances stated in its judgment, was of opinion that the kabuliyat might be suspected collusive, but as that was not the defendants' case who denied that Ali Mohamed executed the kabuliyat at all, and finding that the defendants possessed the land on the strength of the kabuliyat and a decree for rent had been obtained by Iswar on the kabuliyat against the defendants, which, although in its opinion did not operate as res judicata, raised some presumption in favour of the plaintiff, came...
Chander Badan Koer Vs. Sheodhar Prasad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.325
1. It is perfectly clear that this Rule must be made absolute and the Munsif must be directed to admit and hear this suit. The Subordinate Judge passed an order under Section 23, which order is open only to revision in this Court and that order was a final order. The Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to refer such a case to the regular Civil. Court, and the Munsif had no jurisdiction to refuse to entertain the plaint. It is not a case of a plaint originally presented before the Munsif and refused by him which would be open to appeal to the District Judge. It is a case where a case was directly referred to him under the special provision of the law which empowers Small Cause Court Judges to refer such cases when proof or disproof of title to any immoveable property is in their opinion necessary; and looking at the case in that light, we do not think that it is at all necessary to direct the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Judge against the Munsif's order. The Munsif's ...
C.H. Crowdy Vs. L. O'Reilly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.737
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff is what has been described as a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution and libel. As the suit has been dismissed, without trial on the merits, on the ground that it is not maintainable, we must, for our present purpose, assume that the allegations made in the plaint are well founded in fact. The case for the plaintiff is that on the 16th June 1909, the defendant presented a petition in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Begusarai in which he made a number of false and malicious allegations against the plaintiff In that petition, the defendant stated that on the 11th June 1909, the plaintiff and his servants, four in number, prevented him from sowing on his land, and that they intimidated his servants and were prepared to assault him, whereupon his servants for fear of danger to their lives left the place. The defendant further stated in the petition that, on the day following this incident, the plain...
Raja Padmanand Singh Bahadur Vs. Rama Prasad Malvi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.284
1. This appeal is directed against an order in execution proceedings. The antecedent history of the litigation may be briefly stated. On the 25th September 1905, the appellant conveyed all his properties in favour of his son for the payment of his debts. The conveyance provided that the purchaser would pay the vendor a monthly sum of rupees four thousand, the first payment to be made on the 1st October 1905, and the payment for every succeeding month, on the first day of the month following, between the hours of 1 A.M. and 6 A.M. The conveyance also provided for the payment of further sums of rupees two thousand and rupees twelve hundred annually in two equal instalments for specified purposes. The deed further contained a provision that the vendor would not, by mortgage or otherwise, seek to charge or alienate the allowance payable to him, and that, on no account and under no circumstances, was the allowance to become payable to or demandable by any person other than the vendor or his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »