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.
Kailash Chandra Nath Vs. Sheikh Chhenu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal513(1),(1915)ILR42Cal546
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. In this second appeal two questions have been raised, first that the receipt (Ex. A) not being registered could not be admitted in evidence, being a document which purported to affect the terms of the mortgage; and, secondly, assuming that it could be looked at, the release really means that there is a release of four years for which payment has been made and not a waiver in future.2. As regards the first point, we think the matter is concluded by the decision of the Fall Bench in Jiwan All Beg v. Basa Mal (886) I. L. R. 9 All., 108, which has now been, enacted into law by Clause (n) of Section 17 of the Registration Act. We therefore think that registration was not necessary and that the receipt operates as a full acquittance for the money already paid.3. As regards the question of waiver, the words contained in the document are a clear waiver. They say 'be it known that I release you from the liability to pay compound interest as written in the said mortga...
Kailash Chandra Nath and anr. Vs. Sheikh Chhenu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.804
1. In this second appeal two questions have been raised, first, that the receipt (Exhibit A) not being registered could not be admitted in evidence, being a document which purported to affect the terms of the mortgage; and, secondly, assuming that it could be looked at, the release really means that there is a release of four years for which payment has been made, and not a waiver in future.2. As regards the first point, we think, the matter is concluded by the decision of the Full Bench in Jiwan Ali Beg v. Basa Mal 9 A. 108 : A.W.N. (1886) 310 which has now been enacted into law by Clause in of Section 17 of the Registration Act. We, therefore, think that registration was not necessary and that the receipt operates as a full acquittance for the money already paid.3. As regards the question of waiver, the words contained in the document are a clear waiver. They say be it known that I release you from the liability to pay compound interest as written in the said mortgage-bond;' and we c...
Mahim Chandra Sarkar Vs. Hara Kumari Dasee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal487,(1915)ILR42Cal561
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. The question that arises in these three second appeals is principally one. of interpretation of the will of one Anauda Lal Sarkar which has already been partially construed by a Bench of this Court in the case of Hara Kumari Dasi v. Mohim Chandra Sarkar (1908) 12 C. W. N. 412 : 7 C. L. J. 540. The position of the parties flan be seen from the following genealogical table Sitaram SarkarMohan Lal Sarkar Ananda Lal Sarkar. Ichhamoye Dasre.Mahim Chandra Sarkar Hara Kumari Dasee. Hemansini Dasee And Nageudrabala Dasee2. Ananda Lal Sarkar died on the 11th March 1866. His widow Lebhamoye died on the 30th September 1898. Mahim Chandra Sarkar filed a suit against Hara Kumari on the 19th July 1904 for the construction of the will of Ananda Lal, after withdrawing Mb suit for revocation of probate but still wetting np very prominently that the will was a forgery. Maclean C.J. in the opening of his judgment said: 'If the suit had come before me, I should have dismissed i...
Mahim Chandra Sarkar Vs. Hara Kumari Dasee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1914
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.798
1. The question that arises in these three second appeals is principally one of interpretation of the Will of one Ananda Lal Sarkar, which has already been partially construed by a Bench of this Court in the case of Hara Kumari Dasi v. Mohim Chandra Sarkar 12 C.W.N. 412 : 7 C.L.J. 540. The position of the parties can be seen from the following genealogical tables- SITARAM SARKAR. | ____________________________________________ | | Mohan Lal Sarkar, Ananda Lal Sarkar | Ichhamoye Dasee | | Mahim Chandra Sarkar Hara Kumari Dasee | Hemangini Dasee and Nagendrabala Dasee.2. Ananda Lal Sarkar died on the 11th March 1866, His widow Ichhamoye died on the 30th September 1898. Mahim Chandra Sarkar filed a suit against Hara Kumari on the 19th July 1904 for the construction of the Will of Ananda Lal, after withdrawing his suit for revocation of Probate but still setting up very prominently that the Will was a forgery. Maclean, C.J., in the opening of his judgment said: If the suit had come before ...
Co-operative Hindustan Bank Ltd. Vs. Bhola Nath Borooah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1914
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.597
1. This is a petition on behalf of the defendant Bhola Nath Borooah that the award made in this case by Babu Jogendra Nath Mukherjee, a Vakil of this Court, may be set aside. Two grounds have been urged in support of this application--(1) that the award was made out of time and (2) that Babu Jogendra Nath Mukherjee is a share-holder in the plaintiff Company and, therefore, ought not to have acted as arbitrator between the parties. The suit was filed on 9th March 1911, to recover Rs. 25,000 on five hundis said to be signed on behalf of the defendant's firm by the defendant's son, and endorsed over to the plaintiff Bank by Rajendra Chandra Chuckerbutty. The defendant filed his written statement on 1st May 1911, pleading payment of Rs. 15,000. On the 9th July 1912, there was a reference to the arbitration of Babu Tara Kissore Chaudhuri, a Vakil of this Court. Nothing further was don% under that order, and on the 21st July 1913 that order was discharged; and a fresh order of reference was ...
Maharaj Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Surendra NaraIn Singh and ors., Cha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal586,28Ind.Cas.898
1. These four appeals arise out of four applications to set aside a sale in execution of a decree, three under Section 311 and one under Section 313 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. A short narrative of the facts, which are a little complicated, may help a clear conception of the question raised in these appeals.3. Roy Dhanpat Singh Bahadur was the zemindar of perganah Hawali in the District of Purneah and his nephew, Babu Chhatrapat Singh, held a patni of a property named Saifgunj in this perganah. Dhanpat sold his zemindar I interest in this perganah to one Bhagwanbati Chowdhrani in June 1893, and then brought a suit against Chhatrapat for the arrears of the patni rent that had accrued due prior to the said sale and ultimately obtained a decree on the 10th of July 1896. On the 12th of July 1896 Dhanpat assigned all his properties including this decree to certain trustees for the payment of his debts and died in September following. The trustees applied for the execution of the decree a...
Kumeda Prosonno Bhuiya Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal647,30Ind.Cas.255
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the first Court at Midnapur dismissing his suit. The plaintiff brought his suit for a declaration that he was an occupancy ryot of certain land mentioned in the plaint. The land in question is situate within the limits of a Government khas mahal. At the trial the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had served notice on the defendant No. 1 pursuant to the terms of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The other issues the learned Judge decided in favour of the plaintiff. On this appeal coming on for hearing in the first instance, a remand was directed to the lower Court to try the issue as to whether or not notice under Section 80 had been served on the defendant No. 1. The learned Subordinate Judge has not certified to this Court that notice under Section 80 was in fact served. This finding has not been challenged...
Satis Chandra Ghose Vs. Rameswari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1919Cal863,31Ind.Cas.894
1. The decision of this appeal admittedly turns on a point of law, and there is no contest as to the facts. Moreover, it hag been agreed before us that the dispute should be decided by us notwithstanding any defects in procedure.2. The question is whether the title of a purchaser from one who has bought at a sale in execution of his own decree is liable to be defeated where the decree has been subsequently set aside.3. It was decided in Sheik Ismal Rowther v. Rajab Rowther 30 M. 295 : 17 M.L.J. 165 : 2 M.L.T. 186 that where property sold in execution of a voidable decree is purchased by the decree-holder and by him sold for value to a third person, who has no notice of any defect in the decree, the equitable right to set aside such a decree cannot prevail against the rights of a subsequent purchaser for value without notice. If this decision be correct, then the present appeal must succeed.4. But I find it difficult to reconcile this decision with what was said by the Privy Council in ...
Mahamaya Debi Vs. Haridas Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal161(2),(1915)ILR42Cal455
Mookerjee, J.1. Take the question of estoppel first.2. It does not arise at all. A former abuse of trust cannot be pleaded against a trustee who seeks to prevent a repetition of that abuse, even if he were formerly implicated in the same indefensible course against which he is seeking to protect the trust property: Juggut Mohini v. Sokheemoney (1871) 14 Mad. I. A. 289 : 17 W. R. 41, 44. and Mallika v. Ratanmani (1897) 1 C. W. N. 493.3. What do yon say as to the case of Doe v. Horne (1842) 3 Q. B. D. 760, 766 : 61 R. R. 397. In that case the mortgagors were empowered to raise money on mortgage, while here the palms cannot be alienated.4. There was no issue on estoppel; that question has been raised here for the first time.5. Here the transfer is void under Statute, i.e., Scripture of Hindu Law. For the principle against estoppel, see Bigelow p. 514, Ch. 17, Section 1.6. Next, as regards the second contention of the appellant, I submit that the custom of transferring a pala or selling th...
Manorama Chowdhurani Vs. Shiva Sundari Mozumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal480
Holmwood and Chapman JJ.1. This Was a Suit for revocation o[ probate of the will of one Gobinda Chandra Das Mozumdar calling upon the executor to prove the will in the presence of the petitioner.2. The testator died on the 27th or 28th December 1883 of cholera in a boat and the will was said to have been executed on the 27th December 1883. He left a widow and five minor daughters unmarried as well its two brother's sons, the objectors in this case, who were then also minors. By the will the widow got a life estate with remainder to the brother a sons, and the daughters were given allowance for maintenance of Rs. 12 a year each. The petitioner. Manorama Chowdhurani, is the only one of the, daughters who has borne sons, and she claims to come in because admittedly although general citations were issued and her mother obtained probate of the will, no separate guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the minor daughters or the minor brother's sons in the probate proceeding. The eldest ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »