Kolkata Court February 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.
Nabakumar Datta Vs. Trailokya Nath Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal850,24Ind.Cas.354a
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment. On the 28th February 1899 the first defendant took a lease of the disputed property from the plaintiff, which contained the following condition : You will enjoy the profits from generation to generation by erecting houses upon the land and dwelling therein. If you fail to dwell upon the land, you will have no interest in or connection with the land.' It has been found that the lessee went into occupation, built houses on the land and resided therein for ten years. In 1909 he ceased to reside in the premises. The contention of the plaintiff, is that the lease has been forfeited and that the lessee is liable to be ejected. Reliance is placed on behalf of the plaintiff, upon the provisions of Clause (g) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act which provides--we need quote only so much of the section as has any application to the facts of this case-- that a lease of immoveable property determines by forfeiture, that is, ...
Mahomed Musa Vs. Abul Hassan Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal866
Stephen and Mullick, JJ.1. In this case the Local Government acting under Section 8 of the Bengal and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, appointed Mr. James Additional District Judge at Patna. On the 2nd February, 1914, Mr. Roe, the District Judge, transferred to him a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure instituted before himself, which had proceeded as far as the settlement of issues. It is not disputed that this transfer was made under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. On Mr. James taking up the case, it was argued before him that he had no jurisdiction to deal with it, but this was overruled. A Rule, however, has been granted in this Court calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order transferring the case to the file of the Additional Judge should not be set aside as being made without jurisdiction. The objection to Mr. Roe's order is as follows: The effect of Mr. James' appointment was that he became capable of discharging any of the functions of a Di...
Kula Chandra Chakravarti Vs. Bama Sundari Dasee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal805,(1914)ILR41Cal870
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to declare that certain transfers made by defendant No. 1 cannot enure beyond her life. The suit having been dismissed the plaintiff has appealed.2. The appellant's case may be shortly stated here. One Bisseswar Das Baksi died in 1286 leaving a will dated the 8th Assin, 1282. On his death his widow, Ramdhani Dasee obtained letters of administration and remained in possession of his estate till her death in Chait, 1303. At the time of her death she was in possession of two classes of properties, viz., those that were left by her husband and those that were her stridhan. The properties of the former class are set out in schedules ka and kha while those of the latter in schedule ga of the plaint. On 18th Sravan, 1303, she executed a will whereby she constituted, after her death, all the properties of the three schedules into debuttar in favour of her deceased husband's family deity, Begraha Sridhar Thakoor, and appointed her foster ...
Nagendra Nath Basu Vs. Parbati Charan Koyal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1914
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.339
1. This is an appeal by the second defendant in a suit to set aside an ex parte decree. The, plaintiffs hold the disputed land within a tenure which was sold under the Public Demands Recovery-Act, on the 7th September 1908 and was purchased by the first defendant. The second defendant purchased the tenure from the first defendant and on the 18th June 1909 instituted a suit forrent against the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed ex parte on the 16th July 1909; in execution of this decree, the property was purchased by the decree-holder on the 20th November 1909. Meanwhile proceedings had been instituted for cancellation of the sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act, on the ground amongst others that no notice had been served under Section 10 and that consequently the proceedings were invalid and inoperative. The sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act was set aside for the reasons stated on the 29th March 1910. On the 7th May 1910 the plaintiffs commenced this action to set aside th...
Upendra Nath Roy Chowdhury Vs. Bhudeb Chandra Roy Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.859
1. The only question in controversy in this appeal between the judgment-debtor-appellant and the decree-holders-respondents, relates to the period for which the appellant is liable to pay interest under the mortgage decree obtained on the 29th May 1907 by the respondents. The decree states that after the lapse of the date fixed for the payment of the judgment-debt, the decretal amount will bear interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum till the date of realisation. In execution of this decree the mortgaged properties were sold on the 14th July 1909. The earnest money was deposited by the purchaser on that date and the balance was brought into Court on the 3rd August 1909. On the 13th August the judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside on the grounds mentioned in Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of 1908. Four months later, on the 13th December, the judgment-debtor withdrew his application for reversal of the sale. The result was that the sale was confirmed.2. The decree-...
Hari Padu Mandal Vs. Karunamoyee Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal827,24Ind.Cas.214
1. This appeal is directed against an order in execution of a decree in a probate proceeding, and raises a question of some novelty. One Iswar Chandra Mandal left a Will. After his death his widow Karun-namoyee, the respondent in this appeal, applied for Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed. Her step-son, Hari Padu Mandal, the appellant before us, entered caveat. Ultimately the widow and the son were appointed joint administrators on the 30th July 1913, and a decree was drawn up to the following effect : 'it is ordered that Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed do issue to Karunnamoyee Dassi and Hari Pada Mandal jointly as agreed between the parties : and it is further ordered that costs of both the parties do come out of the estate.' In the schedule attached to this decree, the costs incurred by the plaintiff and by the defendant were entered as Rs. 1,041-11-9 and Rs. 21-3-6, respectively. The costs incurred by the plaintiff, it may be observed...
Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narayan Singh Vs. Sheikh Muhammed Siddiq and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal844,24Ind.Cas.313,24Ind.Cas.366
1. In this ease the appellant applied under Section 173, Sub-section (3), of the Bengal Tenancy Act to set aside a sale in execution of a decree held on the 10th September 1907, alleging that the purchaser in that sale was a benamdar on behalf of the judgment-debtor. The sale was, as we have said, made on the 10th September 1907. It was subsequently set aside on the 17th September. On the matter coming before the High Court the order setting aside the sale was itself set aside on the 23rd July 1908. The sale was thus restored to validity on that date. Subsequently the judgment-debtor, by proceedings instituted on the 10th of August 1908, sought to have the sale set aside by an application which was subsequently withdrawn. The result of this proceeding and of the non-payment of the amount of the purchase-money was that the sale was not confirmed till the 28th August 1909. The decree-holder made the present application within three years of August 1909, but after three years from the 23r...
Darbari Panjara Vs. Bhoti Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal452,(1914)ILR41Cal915
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This Rule raises a question of first impression as to the true scope of Section 15 of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 The solution of the question raised is by no means free from difficulty, which has been enhanced by the circumstance that the petitioners appeared in person in support of the application. But we have received considerable assistance from Babu Surendra Nath Ghosal who acted as amicus curice, and not only placed before us a full and clear statement of the facts of the case but also drew our attention to the legislative provisions applicable to the matter.2. The facts, so far as it is necessary to state them for the elucidation of the question of law involved, may be briefly narrated. The petitioners were tenants under one Bhoti Roy in Rohini within the Sonthal Parganas. On the first April 1910, the landlord obtained a decree for Rs. 82-8 -which was the arrear of rent due for the year 1315 and the first-three quarters of the year 1316. This...
Haradhan Debnath Vs. Bhagabati Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal852
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of immoveable property, On the 22nd April 1910, the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to transfer to him the disputed property for Rs. 3,000, and received Rs. 500, as earnest money; she subsequently received an additional sum of Rs. 10. Under the contract this transaction was to be completed within three months The conveyance, however, was not executed and circumstances which we shall presently state, and on the 30th August 1910 the first defendant, it is alleged, sold the property in suit to the second defendant, who took the conveyance in the name of his wife the third defendant. The plaintiff thereupon commenced this action on the 5th November 1910. The Court of first instance held that the transferee had taken with notice of the prior contract, and that the plaintiff was consequently entitled to a decree for specific performance. Upo...
Laban Sardar Vs. Choyen Mallick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1914
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.811
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for contribution. His case is that he and the defendants borrowed money from one Fazil Mandal with a view to carry on a business for the sale and purchase of goods. The money borrowed was applied for the purposes of the partnership and in fact constituted the nucleus of the capital. Fazil Mandal subsequently sued the plaintiff and defendants and obtained a decree on the 2nd February 1907. He took out execution, however, against the plaintiff alone who was thus constrained to satisfy the decree, under compulsion of legal process, by payments made from time to time during the years 1908 and 1909. The plaintiff now seeks to recover from each of the defendants the sum payable by him in respect of the debt due to Fazil Mandal. The first defendant resisted the suit substantially on the ground that the partnership had been closed, that the accounts had been adjusted and that the plaintiff had been paid the sum which was due to him. The allegatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »