Kolkata Court January 1914 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.
Debi Prosad Vs. Ram Ghulam Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal186(2),25Ind.Cas.89
1. This was a suit on a document called sorkhol which ran as follows: 'Interest at the rate of Re.' 1 per cent. Sd. Debi Prosad of Maharajgunj. By my own pen.Lekha (account) of Ram Ghulam Sahu and Naubat Rasu Kulwar of Maharajgunj, Sambat 1969.Credit--credited on the 8th Assin Badi, Sd. Debi Ram Rs. 130. Cash rupees twenty-five, Rs. 25. Former cash Rs. 105, or total Rs. 130.Debit--Nil.2. The suit was decreed and the defendant has obtained from this Court a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the decree should not be modified on the ground that a portion of the claim is barred by limitation. We are informed that out of the entry of 'Rs. 105 former cash' in the sorkhol sums aggregating to Rs. 54-4 were advanced on or before the 22nd April 1909 and were, therefore, barred on the 4th October 1912, the date of the sorkhol. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the suit as regards this amount of Rs. 54-4 is barred by limitation. A number of decisions has been shown to us out...
Jogendra Prosad Mitra and ors. Vs. Asutosh Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1914
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.738
1. This is an appeal by five of the judgment debtors against an order for execution of a decree for mesne profits, made on the 11th December 1899. There were applications for execution in 1901 and 1903 to which no detailed reference is necessary for the purposes of this appeal. These were followed by a third application for execution on the 22nd August 1905. The present application was not made till the 6th January 1909, and is prima facie barred by limitation. The decree holders endeavour, however, to take the case out of the bar of limitation by reliance upon Section 19 and Article 182 of the First Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act.2. In so far as the first ground is concerned, it is Contended that on the 19th February 1906 there was an acknowledgment by the appellants sufficient for the purpose of Section 19. On that date, an application was presented to the Court for adjournment of the sale. The application on the face of it purports to have been made on behalf of one of the ap...
Fulkumari Bibee Vs. Budh Singh Dhudhuria and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal314,25Ind.Cas.112
1. This appeal is directed against an order for the appointment of a guardian of the person of an infant, by name Ranjit Singh, one of the grandsons of Rai Budh Singh Dhudhuria of Azimgunj. The rival claimaints for the office of guardian are the first cousin of the father of infant, Raja Bijoy Singh Dhadhuria, who has been proposed for appointment by the grandfather, and Fulkumari Bibee, the sister of the mother of the infant, who was nominated for appointment as guardian by the mother in a Will executed by her on the 7th June 1912. The District Judge has given preference to the uncle and has appointed him guardian of the person of the infant. Against that order this appeal has been preferred by the aunt and the uncle as also the grandfather have been joined as parties respondents.2. To appreciate the circumstances under which the question of the appointment of a guardian of the person of this infant has corns before the Court, it is necessary to recite briefly the history of the famil...
Rakhal Chandra Tewari Vs. Manmotha Nath Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal42,24Ind.Cas.438
1. We are invited in this appeal to set aside an order by which the District Judge has dismissed an appeal as improperly framed. The respondents held two decrees against the appellant, made in two different suits. The decree-holders presented two distinct applications for execution of those decrees. The judgment-debtor, now appellant before this Court, took objections to the execution of each of those decrees. The objections in the two cases were similar in character and were considered in one judgment. The Court delivered judgment in one case and then added that as this judgment would govern the other case, a copy thereof would be kept in the other record. The judgement-debtor preferred one joint appeal against the orders in the two cases. When the appeal was set down for disposal, objection was taken by the respondents that the appeal was incompetent and that there should have been two separate appeals. In support of this contention rleiance was placed upon a decision of this Court i...
In Re: an Attorney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal734
Imam, J.1. This is an application for review of our order allowing Paresh Chandra Ghosh, an attorney of this Court, to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a sanction under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code granted to the Public Prosecutor of Calcutta by three learned Judges of this Court to prosecute him for perjury.2. The sanction was granted in a proceeding arising out of an enquiry, under Section 10 of the Letters Patent of 1865, into the conduct of the appellant as an attorney of this Court. It has been contended on behalf of the Public Prosecutor that an order, final or otherwise, made in a proceeding under Section 10 is not governed by Section 39 of the Letters Patent and thus no leave to appeal could be given by this Court in the present instance. This objection was not raised, and not even referred to, at the time we heard the application for leave to appeal. Our order granting leave proceeded on a misconception that the proceeding against the attorney was in the ...
Debi Prosad Sahi Vs. Dharamjit Narayan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal727
Coxe, J.1. The first defendant in this case, one Debi Prosad, and his co-sharers 'executed an usufructuary mortgage of village Kathtal in favour of one Ramrup in 1885. He assigned it to the plaintiff Dharamjit and his brother Sarabjit. Thereafter, the two brothers leased half this property back to Debi Prosad; The rent fell into arrears and Debi Prosad then executed a simple mortgage of 8 annas share out of the entire 16 annas of Mouza Kathtal, etc., constituting my (Debi Prosad's) proprietary right which has from before been held in zurpesgi lease by the said creditor, in favour of Dharamjit. At that time Sarabjit was dead, leaving a son Masudan. Dharamjit and Masudan are joint and the former is the kurta.2. The due date of payment was the beginning of September, ]892, and this suit was instituted by Dharamjit alone on the 15th August, 1904. It was decreed ex parte in that year and the decree was made absolute in 1908. The decree was set aside under Order IX, Rule 13, and was ultimate...
Nilambar Ghosh and anr. Vs. Mir Mohasanuddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1914
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.105
1. Following the decision of this Court in Raj Kumar Mazumdar v. Probal Chandra Ganguli 9 C.W.N. 656 by which we are bound, rather than the obiter dictum pronounced in Jarraw Kumari Saheba v. Hanifuddin Akanda 4 Ind. Cas. 471 : 14 C.W.N. 389 we dismiss this appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›