Kolkata Court January 1914 Judgments
Amulya Ratan Sircar Vs. Tarini Nath Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal48,(1915)ILR42Cal254
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. The subject matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal, is one half share of an occupancy holding, which admittedly belonged at one time to Tarapada Cbatterjee. The right to this one half share is claimed, on the one hand, by the transferee from the heir-at-law who is the plaintiff, appellant, and on the other hand, by the transferees from the executor who are the defendants respondents. The occupancy holding, it is not disputed, is not transferable by custom or local usage. In so far as the plaintiff is concerned, his transfer from the heir-at law has been recognised by the landlord, and no question can arise as to its validity on that ground. The substantial question in controversy is, whether the testamentary disposition was valid and operative so as to exclude the heir-at-law, because if there was a valid testamentary devise, the property passed to the executor, and the heir-at-law consequently took nothing. On behalf of the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Osmond Beeby Vs. Khitish Chandra Acharjya Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal18,(1914)ILR41Cal771
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Chaudhuri J., in a suit brought against Mr. Osmond Beeby, a former-administrator pendente lite of the estate of Dakshina Mohan Roy, for a refund of remuneration alleged to have been retained by him in excess of what was his due.2. The order appointing the defendant to be administrator pendente lite provided for his remuneration by the allowance of 'a commission of two per cent, on the assets that will come into his hands.'3. Dakshina Mohan Roy at the time of his death was indebted to the Bank of Bengal, the National Bank of India, and The Comptoir National D'Escompte de Paris. Against this indebtedness each Bank held Government securities, the total value of which was Rs. 6,40,942-8-10. The indebtedness to the several Banks was discharged out of the sale proceeds of the Government securities with the result that a balance of Rs. 29,215-4-5 only came to the hands of the administrator pendente lite. He, has, however, retained a commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Amritalal Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Nritya Gopal Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.465
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof. The subject-matter of the litigation consists of the paint right in two villages Jalbondh and Alankar. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was originally the owner of the patni right in these villages. The question in controversy is whether that right has passed away to the defendants by virtue of an execution sale on the basis of a mortgage granted by the plaintiff in favour of Messrs. Robert Watson & Co. The case for the defendants is that these two villages, although not expressly mentioned in the mortgage deed, were included therein, and that the defendants, who are private purchasers from the mortgagees-execution purchasers, have acquired a good title thereto. The determination of this question must depend upon the construction of the following clause' in the mortgage instrument : ' In Zillah Murshidabad, Sub-Registry Kandi, Division Gokarna, T...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Bhushan Bandopadhyaya and ors. Vs. Krishnakali Bandopadhyaya and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.259
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in, what is described as a suit for contribution. The circumstances antecedent to the litigation are not in dispute and may be briefly narrated. The case for the plaintiffs is that the defendants held a tenancy under Chandra Nath Roy and another person. In November 1907, the plaintiffs purchased the interest of the first defendant in that tenancy. The landlords sued the defendant for rent due on account of the years 1311 to 1313 and obtained a decree. This decree was obtained by some out of the entire body of landlords who claimed a half share in the superior tenancy. The land lords took out execution of this decree and were about to bring the properties to sale. The plaintiffs thereupon deposited in Court the sum of Rs. 135-13-6 to statisfy the decree. The plaintiffs then commenced this action for declaration that, the defendants were liable to pay the judgment-debtor and -that they themselves had paid the money under circumstances which entitled...
Tag this Judgment!Rajani Kanta Das Vs. Kali Prasanna Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal71(1),(1914)ILR41Cal809
Coxe, J.1. This was a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why an appeal should not be reheard on the ground of the discovery of new and important evidence. A preliminary objection is taken that an application of this kind cannot be made after the disposal of a second appeal. The preliminary objection is supported by the decisions in Bhyrub Nath Toee v. Kally Chunder Chowdhry (1871).16 W.R. 112 Raru Kutti v. Mamad (1895) I.L.R. 18 Mad. 480 and In the matter of the Petition of Nand Kishore (1909) I.L.R. 32 All. 71. The first of these rulings is binding upon me and I must, therefore, hold that this application cannot be granted. Reference is made by the other side, to the case of Heera Lull Ghose v. Ram Taruck Dey (1875) 23 W.R. 323. But the observations by the learned Judges in that case do not amount to a decision which can be weighed against the decision in Bhyrub Nath Toee v. Kally Chunder Chowdhry (1871).16 W.R. 112 inasmuch as the learned Judges refused the application for revi...
Tag this Judgment!Nepal Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Ramendra Nath Chakravarty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal718,24Ind.Cas.384
1. In this case upon the application of an under-tenant proceedings were instituted for reversal of a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. The Court of first instance dismissed the application. This was followed by an order on the 9th March, 1912, which entitled the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors to withdraw from Court the sum deposited by the auction-purchaser. On an application by the under-tenant, the Court of Appeal below subsequently set aside the execution sale. The position now is that the auction-purchaser has lost the property he had purchased and the sum deposited by him has meanwhile been withdrawn from Court by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge should have not merely set aside the sale but also directed the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors to bring back into Court the sums which they had respectively withdrawn, in order that the auction-purchaser might receive back...
Tag this Judgment!KeramuddIn Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal357,(1914)ILR41Cal806
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Dinajpur to show cause why the order under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code passed against the petitioner should not be set aside, first, on the ground that the provisions of Section 112 have not been complied with, inasmuch as the substance of the information received from the police has not been recorded and the accused person had no notice thereof; and, secondly, that the case is triable as a warrant case, and the accused had a right to have the witnesses properly cross-examined, and to have processes issued on any witnesses he desired to call in defence. The rule could have been stated more shortly by saying that it had not been heard, first, with reference to the provisions of Section 112; and, secondly, with reference to the provisions of Section 117.2. As regards the alleged breach of the provisions of Section 112, the learned Magistrate points out in his explanation that he has foll...
Tag this Judgment!Sasi Bhusan Dey and anr. Vs. Umakanto Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.171
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1312 to 1315 (B. S.) on the basis of a contract of. tenancy dated the 7th May 1877, under which the rent is payable partly in cash and partly in kind. The tenant undertook to pay Rs. 9 in cash and to deliver a specified quantity of paddy. The plaintiffs allege that rent has not been paid and seek to recover the cash rent as also the value of the paddy at the market rate thereof! The defendants resist the claim Substantially on two grounds namely, first, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the market-value of the paddy but only to Rs. 39 annually as stated in the contract of tenancy; and, secondly, that the claim was barred in respect of the years 1312 to 1314, inasmuch as the suit had been instituted on the 14th April 1909, more than six months after a deposit had' been made in Court on the 20th March 1908 under Section 61 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Courts below have given effect to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanai Lal Mandal and anr. Vs. Jadab Lal Gangopadhaya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal907(1),25Ind.Cas.386
Teunon, J.1. This appeal is by the principal defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiff to have it declared that he is entitled to irrigate certain lands from a certain tank by taking water through a channel cut through the defendants' land. The Court of first instance has found that the claim is barred by limitation, but, on appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge has found that he has acquired the right which he claims and that there is no bar by limitation. In this appeal by the defendants it is contended, first, that the owner of the tank in question, which does not belong to the appellants, was a necessary party to the suit: and, secondly, that on the District Judge's own finding he should have held that the suit was barred by limitation.2. On the first point it may be observed that the owner of the tank not having been made a party to the plaintiff's claim, he will not be bound by any decision that may be arrived at in this suit'; but it does not appear that he is ...
Tag this Judgment!W.P. Abro Vs. Promotho Nath Mukerjee, and Promotho Nath Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal777(2),24Ind.Cas.452
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is a suit for the refund of earnest money, paid in view of aw intended purchase by the plaintiff of the premises mentioned in the plaint, with interest and costs. There was an agreement on the 10th November, 1911, for the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of the said premises subject to the approval of title by Mr. B. Sreemany, solicitor for the purchaser, Clauses 3 and 4 of which run thus : The vendor shall make over to the purchaser's solictior all the title--deeds relating to the property on the day following the execution of these presents and the purchase shall be completed within 15th day of December, 1911, provided the title be approved of by the purchaser's solicitor--' (Clause 3). If the title be found good and be approved of by the purchaser's solicitor then the vendors will execute a proper conveyance in favour of the purchaser or his nominee or nominees in which the vendor shall make all necessary parties join, and the purchaser shall be entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »