Kolkata Court March 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.
Budhai Sardar Vs. Sonaullah Mridha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal943
Carnduff, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against an appellate decree declaring a right of pre-emption under the Mahomedan Law of Shafa. The facts found may, for present purposes, be thus succinctly stated.2. The right is claimed by one Sonaullah in respect of the share of a jote which his co-sharer, Ansaruddi, has sold to an outsider, Budhai. Sometime previously Ansaruddi had offered to sell the share to Sonaullah and Sonaullah had refused to buy. But when, precisely, this offer was made, and what were its terms, do not appear. After Sonaullah's refusal Ansaruddi, on the 14th December, 1907, executed a kobala conveying the share to Budhai for Rs. 300; but no consideration passed then, and there was no delivery of possession. Having become aware of the execution of Budhai's kobala, Sonaullah approached Ansaruddi on the 23rd December and obtained another kobala purporting to transfer the share to him for Rs. 400. The latter transaction fell through owing to Sonaullah's failur...
Enatulla Basunia Vs. Jiban Mohan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal360,(1914)ILR41Cal956
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Rungpore rejecting an application to set aside a decree said to have been passed ex parte. The application was made under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree sought to be set aside was passed under these circumstances. On the day the hearing of the case commenced both the parties appeared. The case then proceeded from day to day. The plaintiff in the course of 9 days examined 14 witnesses, who were cross-examined by the defendants' pleader, and then closed his case. The defence pleader then began his case and examined one of the defendants whose cross-examination, not having been finished on the third day of his examination, stood adjourned to the next day when neither he, the witness, nor the pleader for the defence appeared. The Subordinate Judge consequently noted the case for the defence as closed and proceeded to hear the argument of the pleader for the plaintiff. There ...
Kattayani Debi Vs. Port Canning and Land Improvement Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.274
1. The substantial question in controversy' in this appeal is, whether the rent of the tenure held by the defendant-appellant under the plaintiffs-respondents is enhanceable. The plaintiffs constitute a Joint Stock Company which has its head quarters in Bombay and its local office in Canning Town, On the 20th October 1876, the Company appointed one Cowasjee Edalji as their attorney to take and obtain possession of the property which includes the disputed tenure. On the 8th March 1885 Cowasji Edalji drew up a memorandum which embodied the arrangement made by him on behalf of the Company with five persons, who were teachers by 'profession, and constituted a company known as 'Teacher and Company.' The memorandum recited that with effect from the commencement of the year 1291, that is, from the 12th April 1884, Teacher and Company had taken possession of a thousand bighas of land in three separate parcels within defined boundaries. The jungles were to be cleared by the lessees, the lessor ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›