Kolkata Court June 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.
Sahadoka Mudiali Vs. NabIn Chand Boral
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal638
Chatterjea J.1. A demand for rent from tenants, to the under-tenure-holder's knowledge may amount to notice.2. There are decrees which were obtained by the purchaser before the present rent suits were brought viz., on 3rd August 1909. In Clause (4) of Section 37 Act XT of 1859, the words ' have been made' indicates (in the use of the present perfect tense) that they must be in existence at the time of sale; the right accrues at the time of the sale when the protection is claimed.3. It is the existence of that class of improvements that gives the protection. The land in question being busti land does not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned in Section 37 of the Land Revenue Sale Act: Sagore Hath Base v. Rakhal Dasi Debi (1910) 7 Ind 912. These huts do not come within the description of dwelling-houses, which must be of a permanent nature to claim this protection; Makar Ali v. Shiyam Charan Das (1898) 3 C. W. N. 212. All the cases proceed on the assumption that the existing state o...
Ram Sharan Lal and ors. Vs. Maharaja Sri Sri Ram NaraIn Singh Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.610
1. The plaintiff in this case is the zemindar of Pergana Raj Ramgarh which includes Mouza Salga, of which he says that a jagir was granted to one Kanshi Singh in 1852. Kanshi had two sons, of whom one predeceased him, dying childless, and the other Banshi Lal succeeded him, but died in 1897 without leaving male issue. The plaintiff succeeded in collecting rents for two years, but was dispossessed by the defendants in 1899. He now sues for possession and mesne profits, alleging that he is entitled to resume his ancestor's grant on the failure of male issue oil the grantee.2. To this claim the defendants set up two defences, one based on fact and one on law. The first was that the grant was made not to Banshi, as the plaintiff says, but to Raghu, Banshi's father, of whom the defendants are descendants in the male line. There are many difficulties about this defence, which is not supported by the evidence, and it was given up in the lower Court and not raised here, and need not, therefore...
Esahaq Chowdhry Vs. Abedunnessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal361
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, of Burdwan, dated the 23rd September 1912, affirming the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the kabala set up by the defendant No. 1 was collusive and invalid and not binding upon them. The question that we have got to decide lies within a narrow compass. The defendant No. 1 is the widow of a Mahomedan gentleman. This Mahomedan gentleman, had agreed to pay certain sum as dower to the said defendant. The dower was deferred dower; but it is the common case-and so found by the learned Subordinate Judge-that a portion of the dower was outstanding at the date of the execution of the kabala in question. The deceased gentleman executed a conveyance of this property to the defendant in satisfaction of her dower-debt. A question has been, raised before ns, whether the principles of the Mahomedan Law, with reference to the death-bed illness which app...
Esahuq Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Srimati Abedannissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.692
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, second Court of Burdwan, dated the 23rd September 1912, affirming the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the kobala set up by the defendant No. 1 was collusive and invalid and not binding upon them. The question that we have got to decide has with in a narrow compass. The defendant No. 1 is the widow of a Muhammadan gentleman. This Muhammadan gentleman had agreed to pay a certain sum as dower to the said defendant. The dower was deferred dower; but it is the common case, and so found by the learned Subordinate Judge that a portion of the dower was outstanding at the date of the execution of the kobala in question. The deceased gentleman executed a conveyance of this property to the defendant in satisfaction of her dower-debt, A question has been raised before us whether the principles of the Muhammadan Law with reference to the death-bed illness which ap...
J.M. Lucas Vs. Official Assignee of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1914
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.577
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. On the 21st February 1912 J. M. Lucas was adjudicated an insolvent on his own petition under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. He was examined as to his conduct, dealings and property, and later, proceedings under Part VIII of the Act were instituted against him.2. A notice was served on him under Section 104 professing to set forth the substance of certain offences, and calling on him to shew cause why charges should not be framed against him. Nine charges were framed; on three he was acquitted, on six he was convicted and on each of these he was sentenced to rigourous imprisonment for four months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. From these convictions and sentences Lucas has appealed,3. The charges fall under two general heads, the withholding and falsifying of books of account, and the making away with property.4. As it is objected on the part of the appellant that in one important particular the charge does not correspond with the ...
Akhoy Kumar Banerjee Vs. Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR42Cal625
Mookerjee, J.1. The other side does not question all this. He says, how do you know I am a defaulter, and then his second point is that Section 228 has to be read along with Section 223.2. But Section 228 is not a corollary to Section 227.Mookerjee, J.3. Is defaulter defined anywhere in the act?4. No. But defaulter means any one who is liable, but has failed to pay.Mookebjee, J.5. It is quite conceivable that more than one person may be a defaulter with respect to the same sum6. The purchaser inherits one year's liability of defaulting owner. Consolidated rates are levied because the property is benefited, while licenses, etc., art; personal. The liability of the property is unrestricted (irrespective of the owner), whereas the (nihility of the person is limited, therefore, Section. 228 provides that the property should he the security. Whoever may be the man during whose ownership the arrears fell due, though his person and moveables are liable only for one year's default, still so fa...
Soudamini Ghose Vs. Gopal Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.557
1. This appeal is directed against an order under Clause (1) of paragraph 21 of the second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, The Court below has ordered that an award made by arbitrators without the intervention of the Court be filed. A preliminary objection has been tai fin to the competence of the appeal, on the ground that as a decree has already been drawn up in accordance with the judgment pronounced on the basis of the award and as such decree is not open to appeal under Clause (2) of paragraph 21, the order must be deemed to have merged in the decree and to be no longer liable to be challenged by way of appeal. In our opinion, the preliminary objection must be overruled. It cannot be disputed that under Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 104 of the Code, an appeal lies from an order tiling or refusing to file an award in an arbitration without the intervention of the Court. Such appeal may be preferred at anytime within the period prescribed therefor by the Ind...
Jotiram Khan Vs. Jonaki Nath Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1914
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.54
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for arrears of rent and for ejectment. The defendant was inducted into an agricultural holding on the 16th December 1898 by the plaintiffs who granted him a lease for five years. The holding is situated within the present Municipal limits of Calcutta, but is beyond the jurisdiction of the Town of Calcutta as determined by the Proclamation of the Governor-General in Council, dated the 10th September 1794, and issued under Section 159 of Stat. 33, Geo. III, c. 52 (Rules and Orders of the High Court, edited by J.H. Hechle, p. 555). On the 9th November 1910 the plaintiffs commenced this action, not only for the recovery of arrears of rent then due but also for ejectment of the defendant on the allegation that they had terminated his tenancy by service of a notice to quit. The suit has been decreed for both rent and ejectment. There is now no contest as to the liability of the defendant for the arrears decreed. The only question in controversy...
Upendra Nath Kalamuri Vs. Kusum Kumari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal827,(1915)ILR42Cal440
Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the Subordinate Judge has confirmed an order of the Court of first instance for execution of a money decree. On the 7th April 1904, the respondent obtained a decree for money against one Gobardhan Kalamuri described as the shebait of goddesses Lakshmi and Bhagabati. Before the decree could be executed in full, the judgment-debtor died. On the 28th July 1909, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by the sale of a one-fourth share of 260 bighas of land within certain boundaries. She stated in her petition that the judgment-debtor was dead, that he had left five nephews (sons of different sisters) as also three paternal uncles, that one or more of these persons had succeeded as shebait of the endowment, but that as plaintiff had not been able to ascertain who was the shebait, she prayed that execution might proceed after service of notice on all these persons under Rule 22 of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure...
Rashmani Dasi and anr. Vs. Baroda Kant Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.31
1. This is an application, under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, to enforce the liability of a surety. The circumstances under which the surety-bond was executed may be shortly stated. On the 14th August 1909, one Baroda Kant Sarkar was appointed Receiver to the estate of Mahendra Narayan Patra, at that time the subject-matter of an administration suit in the Court of the third Subordinate Judge of the 24-Perganahs. The Receiver was appointed on condition of his furnishing personal security for Rs. 5,000. The Receiver took possession of the estate and received the rents and profits, but never furnished the security. Proceedings were subsequently instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge to take the accounts of the Receiver. The Subordinate Judge directed that the estate be released, if the plaintiffs brought into Court, for payment to the Receiver, a specified sure of money to enable the latter to discharge the liabilities which, he alleged, he had incurred f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »