Kolkata Court April 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.
Sarojini Dasi Alias Patal Dasi Vs. Bhola Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal721,24Ind.Cas.792
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order by which the Court below has refused an application by the petitioner for leave to sue in forma pauperis.2. The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant and seeks to sue him for recovery of the price of ornaments and other articles which she alleges have been wrongfully withheld from her by her husband. She values the claim at Rs. 781-8 for which a Court-fee of Rs. 59-8 has to be paid on the plaint. Her allegation is that there were differences between her and her mother-in-law, that as a result she has been expelled by her husband from his house and that she is not possessed of sufficient means to enable her to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint. The defence substantially is that on the 17th November 1912, she was expelled for misconduct, and that she had on her person at the time ornaments of the approximate value of Rs. 250. In the course of the evidence, it was also sought to be established on behalf of the, husband that,...
LokenaraIn Mahto and ors. Vs. Jeo Lal Mahto and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal669(2),24Ind.Cas.675
1. This case arises as follows-The appellant before us who is the plaintiff was the plaintiff in a suit for partition in 1902. That suit was at first dismissed, but was decreed in appeal by the High Court which settled the shares of the parties in the usual way. An appeal was preferred to the Privy Council by the defendants, the present respondents. Then the parties executed an ekrarnama the effect of which was to anticipate the final decree that might be passed in the case by in fact partitioning the property by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs accordingly did not appear before the Privy Council thinking that the matter was at an end. The Privy Council subsequently dismissed the appeal there by leaving the decision of this Court in full effect. The defendants subsequently applied to the Subordinate Judge to have the ekrarnama recorded and that was accordingly done and his decision is now before us under appeal. Having heard the arguments on both sides and the facts laid before us we a...
Balmer Lawrie and Co. Vs. Jadunath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal658,(1915)ILR42Cal1
Mookerjee, J.1. How do you say there is an appeal?2. As the question is between parties to the suit, the order should fall under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, and hence there Section an appeal.3. 'Assets' in the present section has the ordinary meaning attached to the word and therefore the ' assets' of the judgment-debtor in the present case were received by the executing Court on the day on which the promissory notes and the cheque for Rs. 523 were sent by the Secretary, Municipal Corpora-lion, to the Court. This was long before the petitioners applied for rateable distribution, and hence they are out of time.Beachcroft, J.4. Have the promissory notes been endorsed over to the opposite party, and has the cheque been cashed?5. [Babu Sajani Kanta Sinha, for the petitioner. No, the cheque has not been cashed, but the Government promissory notes have been endorsed over to the opposite party Jadunath on the very day on which this rule was issued by your Lordships. There appears ...
Kumar Kalidas Pandey Vs. Babu Krishna Dhan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal791(2),24Ind.Cas.1
1. The defendant in this case is a tenant under the plaintiff in the Sonthal Parganas. At the Settlement the landlord sued to have the tenancy declared invalid, as it was that of a middleman, which was said not to be recognised by the law of the Sonthal Parganas. The Settlement Authorities found that it was a permanent tenure with a variable rent, and assessed a fair rent. In revision the Commissioner accepted the view that the tenancy was a permanent tenure with a variable rent, but set aside the assessment on the ground that the plaintiff had not asked for an assessment, adding that it would be open to the zemindar to sue for enhancement. Accordingly this suit has been brought and has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that there is no law in the Sonthal Parganas justifying a suit in the Civil Court for enhancement of rent. The plaintiff accordingly appeals.2. It certainly seems unfortunate that the Commissioner construed the pleadings in the case before him so str...
Lakhindar Barua and anr. Vs. Saroda Charan De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.253
1. We are invited in this Rule to review the judgment of this Court in an appeal from an appellate decree, which arose out of a suit for ejectment by a purchaser of a tenure at a sale held under Act VII of 1868 (B. C.). The appeal was heard and dismissed by Newbould and Roy, JJ. When the application for review was made, both the learned Judges had ceased to be members of this Court : consequently under the rules of this Court, by an order of the Chief Justice, the application was placed before this Bench, for disposal. We heard the petitioners and granted a Rule which has now come up for consideration.2. The substantial ground urged in support of the application for review is, that the petitioners are protected from ejectment under the third clause of Section 12 of Act VII of 1868 which, so far as it is material for our present purpose, is in these terms : 'The purchaser of any tenure sold under the provisions of Section 11 of : the Act shall acquire it free from all encumbrances which...
Bahuria Sambho Kuar Vs. Harihar Prasad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal1092
Coxe, J.1. In this case it appears that Tauzi No. 3306 comprised numerous separate accounts. The plaintiff had an interest in separate account No. 282, the 1st defendant in No. 168 and the 2nd defendant in 222. Several of these accounts fell into arrears, among them being No. 222 and the residuary share. They were advertised for sale and the sale was fixed for the 20th September 1909. On that date No. 222, among others, was put up for sale but no bids were received. Accordingly the Collector, under Section 14 of the Revenue Sales Act, 1859, declared that the entire estate would be sold unless the other sharers paid up the arrears within 10 days. The next day, the 21st September, the 1st defendant paid in the arrears due on No. 222 and on the 28th he paid all the sums due on the various separate accounts. On the 22nd September the plaintiff; offered to pay in the money due on the various separate accounts with the exception of the residuary account. The Collector said that no permission...
Basir-ud-dIn Ahmad and ors. Vs. Himmat Ali Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal22,25Ind.Cas.852
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, second Court, of the 24-Parganahs dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they are entitled to a certain share in a certain immoveable property and the ground on which their claim was put forward was that the property in question belonged to one Mitoo Sircar and that the plaintiffs were along with the defendants the heirs of the said Mitoo Sircar. The second claim that was put forward was that it might be declared that neither the defendants nor the deceased Sarafat Mondal had any right to the said 11-annas odd share of the property mentioned in the schedule. I do not know what we have got to do in this case with the title of the defendants or the deceased Sarafat Mondal. The point we have got to deal with in this case is whether the plaintiffs have established their title to a portion of the property as alleged by them in the plaint. The-learned Jud...
Askoran Satia Vs. Satish Chandra Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.281
1. This appeal is directed against a decree by which a Special judge has dismissed a suit under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground that the plaintiff was notcompetent in view of the provisions of Section 188 of maintaining a proceeding under Section 105, as he was one of several joint landlords.2. The defendants are in occupation of lands situated within three revenue paying estates, Nos. 23, 26 and 31. They have been recorded in the Record of Rights as persons who are in occupation, without payment of rent, of lands liable to assessment. One set of defendants has the status of tenure-holders : some are described as settled raiyats : and one is recorded as an occupancy raiyat. In respect of all of them the note is made that they are liable to have rent assessed in respect of the lands in their occupation. The plaintiff who is the purchaser of estate No. 31, which has been sold for arrears of revenue and which comprises a one-fourth undivided share of the plots included...
Bahuria Sambho Koer Vs. Harihar Prasad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal735,24Ind.Cas.276
Coxe, J.1. In this case it appears that Towzi No. 3306 comprised numerous separate accounts. The plaintiff had an interest in separate account No. 282, the 1st defendant in No. 168 and the 2nd defendant in No. 222. Several of these accounts fell into arrears, among them being No. 222 and the residuary share. They were advertised for sale and the sale was fixed for the 20th September 1900. On that date No. 222, among others, was put up for sale but no bids were received. Accordingly the Collector, under Section 14 of the Revenue Sales Act, 1859, declared that the entire estate would be sold unless the other sharers paid up the arrears within ten days. The next day, the 21st September, the 1st defendant paid in the arrears due on No. 222 and on the 28th he paid all the sums due on the various separate accounts. On the 22nd September the plaintiff offered to pay in the money due on the various separate accounts with the exception of the residuary account. The Collector said that they need...
Dharma Charan Dey and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal664,24Ind.Cas.820
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The holding of the defendant tenants is situated partly within the limits of a revenue-paying mahal and partly within a nowabad taluk. The plaintiffs claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 3-8 on account of the lands lying within the mahal and at the rate of 50 arts of paddy on acount of the lands lying within the nowabad taluk. The defendant tenants' case was that the jama payable on account of the land lying in the nowabad taluk was at a cash rate as settled by the Revenue Officer. In regard to the lands lying within the mahal there is no longer any dispute and no question relating to the rent of those lands is before Rs. Both the lower Courts decreed the plaintiffs' suit at the rate claimed by them. The defendant tenants appeal.2. The question for our decision is whether the rate of rent for the nowabad land should be at 50 arts of paddy, which is the rate in the kabuliat of the year 1891, or at the cash rate entered in the khalian of 1898. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »