Kolkata Court July 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.
Abdul Majeed Vs. Khirode Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal690
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out, of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 1,300, being principal Rs. 80 and interest Rs. 1,220 on a mortgage bond executed by three defendants on 1st Jaishta 1312.2. The transaction was an unusual one, and the facts found require to be carefully stated as well as the circumstances which are admitted in connection with the giving of the mortgage bond and recited in the bond itself.3. It appears that Abdul Majeed, defendant No. 1, mortgaged 6 annas of a raiyati jote in which his brother, defendant No. 2, was also interested, while defendant No. 3, a relative, mortgaged three six-annas shares of jotes and an eight-annas share of n howla belonging exclusively to him.4. The three defendants had bid successfully at a sale of the land of one Nagorbashi Kundu and had deposited the earnest money. They were in immediate need of Rs. 80 to complete the purchase and applied to the former creditor of defendant No. 3, one Harish Chandra Pal,...
Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. Ksherode Chandra Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal383,29Ind.Cas.843
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 1,300 being principal Rs. 80, and interest, Rs. 1,220, on a mortgage bond executed by three defendants on 1st Jaistha 1312.2. The transaction was an unusual one and the facts found require to be carefully stated as well as the circumstances which are admitted in connection with the giving of the mortgage-bond and recited in the bond itself.3. It appears that Abdul Majid, defendant No. 1, mortgaged 6 annas of a raiyati jote in which his brother, defendant No. 2, was also interested while defendant No. 3 a relative, mortgaged three 6-anna shares of jotes and an 8-anna share of a howla belonging exclusively to him.4. The three defendants had bid successfully at a sale of the land of one Nagarbashi Kundu and had deposited the earnest money. They were in immediate need of Rs. 80 to complete the purchase and applied to the former creditor of defendant No. 3, one harish Chandra Pal who had a mortgage on properties Nos...
Musammat Balia Koer Vs. Bandh Ram Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.512
1. In this case the District Judge has made an order: he says under Section 5 of Regulation V of 1799. In form it appears more like an order under Section 4. He has no jurisdiction to make such an order, for no regular suit has been brought by the persons who claim the property with which he has dealt. It is order is, therefore, ultra vires and must be set aside. The Court will then be in possession of the property claimed by the two persons who consider themselves entitled to it on intestacy. His proper course will be to return the property to the authority from which it came, namely, to the Police. We may observe that it will then be open to the District Magistrate to make over the property to one of the parties or to some other person, taking signature from them that it should be held in such a way as to be available for any person who may succeed in establishing his right thereto.2. The Rule is accordingly made absolute.3. We make no order as to costs....
Gonesh Mondol Vs. Thanda Namasundrani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.489
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated the 1st May 1912, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Magura.2. The appeal is by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain land which had been leased to (or as they say in this country, settled with) her by one Tarini Charan Sen, who was the raiyat of the land with the right of occupancy. After the lease to the plaintiff, Tarini Charan Sen let out the land to the defendant; and the plaintiff has now brought the present suit to recover possession of the land.3. A point has been argued before us, namely, with reference to Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Under the terms of that Section the under-lease to the plaintiff is in excess of the period authorised by the Section and, therefore, ought not to have been registered. The cases in this Court on this point appear to be in a state of chaos. Those cases are numerous and are difficult to reconcile. The later...
Girish Chandra Ray Vs. Sarat Chandra Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal692,(1915)ILR42Cal667,30Ind.Cas.743
Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.1. The petitioners applied to this Court for a Rule to quash the proceedings now pending against them and, on their application, we ordered, on the 18th of May last, that it copy of the petition should be forwarded to the District. Magistrate with a request that, he should state whether and in what sense Babu Khirode Lal Mukherjee was the successor in office or Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose. A long letter was received by this Court from the Magistrate giving us all information tending to show that Babu Khirode Lal Mukherjee was the successor in office of Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose. Then we issued the present Rule, on the 10th of June, on the District Magistrate and on the opposite part, to show cause why the proceedings preliminary to the granting of sanction should not he quashed on the ground that Babu Khirode Lal Mukherjee was not the successor in office of Babu Harendra Kumar Ghose.2. Now, the whole matter has been argued before us. The ease stands thus. There ...
Asir Mahomed Sheikh and ors. Vs. Raja Probhat Chandra Barua
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.1
1. These appeals arise out of suits, for enhancement of rent under Section 18 of Act VIII of 1869 B.C. The only ground upon which enhancement has been allowed is that the defendants paid rent below the prevailing rate of rent paid by tenants in the places adjacent. The defendants have appealed to this Court, and several questions have been raised in these appeals.2. The main contention, and that which applies to all the appeals, is that the decision of the Courts below as to the prevailing rate is incorrect.3. The holdings of the defendants are situated in Mouzah Bidyapara. Some of the tenants of Bidyapara pay rent at a higher rate than that paid by the defendants, but they do not form a majority of the tenants of the mouzah. The Courts below, however, have taken the rate of rent in the neighbouring mouzahs, along with the rate paid by the minority of the tenants of Mouzah Bidyapara itself, to be the prevailing rate.4. It has been contended that neighbouring mouzahs are not 'places adj...
Hasuni Bibi and anr. Vs. Sadir Mamud Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal782,30Ind.Cas.252
1. Defendant No. 4 was a raiyat with a non-transferable right of occupancy. In 1902 he executed a hat kabala in respect of a part of his holding in favour of defendant No. 1. The term of this hat kabala expired in 1905 and a fresh hat kabala by a registered deed was given for a term of three years up to Agran 1315.2. The landlord detained a decree for arrears of rent against defendant No. 4 in 1908 and on the 5th of April 1908 defendant No. 4 gave an istafa of his holding to the landlord by a registered deed stating that he would not be liable for the arrears due. The landlord settled the land with the plaintiff on the 16th April 1898 for five years. The land lord, however, executed his rent-decree and defendant No. 1 paid up the amount in order to save the holding from sale. The plaintiff then entered into possession, but was evicted in execution of decree under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff now brings this suit for recovery of possession and the Courts below hav...
Shanker Prosad Jha and ors. Vs. Babu Lal Jha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal541,28Ind.Cas.241
1. This is a partition suit brought by the plaintiffs against their uncles, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and their descendants, who are defendants Nos. 3-10.2. Joyram Dutt, the grandfather, died in 1295 leaving three; sons Babulal, Surji and Dinabsindhu. These throe brothers remained joint up to about 1302, when they separated in mess, and the income of the family properties which remained joint used to be divided in three equal shares. In this state of things Surji died about 1308 leaving four sons, who are the plaintiff. Of those, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 have attained majority and the other plaintiffs are minors. 80 far the facts may be taken as established. The plaintiffs state that on the death of their father the family properties remained in charge of their uncles, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who used to pay them small amounts for the bare necessities of life and were, therefore, liable to render accounts for he period subsequent to the death of their father. Marring the question of acc...
In Re: Balchand Suran
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.623
Chaudhuri, J.1. Let the judgment be entered up against the insolvent. Balchand Surana in this Court in its original jurisdiction in the name oil the Official Assignee for the amount of the debts mentioned in the schedule filed herein and costs of this application be paid out of the assets of the estate....
Jitendra Kumar Pal Chowdhury Vs. Mohendra Chandra Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1914
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.239
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for declaration of title to land and for recovery of possession thereof. The plaintiffs-respondents claim title to the disputed property by purchase of a share of an estate at a sale for arrears of revenue held on the 25th October 1887, under Section 70 of Regulation I of 1886. On the 17th November 1888 the Sub-Divisional Officer issued to the purchasers a sale-certificate, in which it was stated that the Sale had been held on the 25th October 1887 in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and had been confirmed on the 31st October 1888. The present suit was commenced on the 26th October 1900. On behalf of the defendants, it was contended in the Court below that the suit was barred by limitation. This contention has been overruled by the Subordinate Judge. In this Court, in answer to the contention of the defendant-appellant that the suit is barred by limitation, the plaintiffs-respondents have argue...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »