Kolkata Court August 1914 Judgments
Amatoo and Vs. Sheik Muksud Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.314
1. The plaintiff No. 1 is the auction-purchaser at a rent sale in respect of a patni taluq of 8-annas 1-ganda share in Taluqa Jibba Kata Gheringaon. The plaintiff No. 2 was said to be the real purchaser, plaintiff No. 1 being his servant and benamidar. It was owing to an objection made by the defendants that they became joint plaintiffs. It has been held that the benami has not been proyed: this finding has been very strongly impeached before us, but the finding' is one of fact, however unsatisfactorily it may have been arrived at.2. The defendants first party are the cultivating raiyats and defendants second party, holders of an intermediate tenure said to have been annulled by the plaintiff No. 1 under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. The plea of the defendants first party was, amongst other things, that they had paid the rent to their landlords, the defendants second party, and the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist as between themselves and the plaintiffs.4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Manmatha Nath Mookerjee Vs. Sarat Chandra Addy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal498,29Ind.Cas.929
1. This is an appeal by the sixth defendant in a suit brought by a mortgagee to enforce his security. The mortgagee also seeks to recover two sums of money paid by him in satisfaction of the dues of the superior landlord. The mortgage was granted by the first defendant on the 14th July 1909 for a loan of Rs. 2,500, which carried interest at 15 per cent, per annum with quarterly rests. The first of the two payments was made by the mortgagee on the 17th March 1910, under Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, to set aside a sale of the mortgaged property held at the instance of the superior landlord in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. The second payment was made on the 15th June 1910, under Section 171 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, to protect the mortgaged property from a sale which had been advertised to take place at the instance of the landlord in execution of another decree of rent. The appellant, the sixth defendant, acquired the equity of redemption under three conveyances f...
Tag this Judgment!Syed MohiuddIn and ors. Vs. Pirthichand Lal Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal444,31Ind.Cas.664
1. This is an appeal by the first party defendants in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof. The lands in dispute originally belonged to one Syed Ashgar Reza, Khan Bahadur, and the plaintiff as also the first party defendants claim to have acquired his interest, the former by purchase at a sale in execution of a money-decree, the latter by purchase at a sale in execution of a certificate'under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1895. The history of the devolution of the interest of the original admitted owner, as alleged by each of the rival claimants, may be briefly stated. Pirthichand, the present plaintiff, in execution of a decree for money against Ashgar Reza made under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, attached the disputed lands on the 6th November 1905. At the execution sale, which followed in due course, he became the purchaser on the 5th February 1907; the sale was confirmed on the 11th May 1907 (Exhibit 5. Meanw...
Tag this Judgment!Mohunt Gopal Das Vs. Maharaja Rameswar Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal396,29Ind.Cas.966
1. This is an appeal by the second party defendant against the final decree in a suit for partition of joint property. According to the plaintiff, he interested in the property to the extent of two-annas share. The first defendant, the Maharaja of Darbhanga, has ten-annas share and the second defendant four-annas share. The plaintiff prayed that a partition might be effected and separate allotments made in proportion to the shares held by the parties. The first defendant did not dispute the extent of the shares, but stated that the land might be partitioned in proportion to the ten-annas share owned by him and a separate allotment made in his favour. The second defendant also took up a similar position. In these circumstances, on the 15th July 1907 a preliminary decree was made in these terms: 'There is no dispute about the shares. The defendants in their written statement allege that they have, no objection to the partition being effected. It is, therefore, ordered that a Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Udit Narayan Jha Vs. Musammat Jasoda Sahun Kalan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1914
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.469
D. Chatterjee, J.1. Musammat Nainabaty, a Hindu widow in possession of the estate of her husband, and the next reversioner, who is the appellant before us, jointly executed a mortgage-bond on which the creditor obtained a decree against both and executed the same against both, claiming interest at the bond rate until actual payment. Nainabaty alone made an objection as regards interest subsequent to the period of grace but her objection was disallowed and an appeal to the High Court was filed but withdrawn. The two judgment-debtors then jointly sold a part of the mortgaged property by private sale under the sanction of the Court and satisfied a part of the decree. The decree was then sold to the respondent, who applied for execution claiming interest at the same rate as the original decree-holder: pending execution Nainabaty died and the appellant was substituted in her place: as he was already a judgment debtor on the record as a reversioner, this order of substitution must mean that ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Legal Remembrancer Vs. Kailash Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal760
Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.1. This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate of the pabna and the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge, dated the 12th May 1914, should not be set aside, and the appeal re-heard on the merits. It appears that the two accused, Kailash Chandra Ghosh and Ram Chandra Ghosh, were tried under Sections 347, 352 and 352 coupled with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced. On appeal to the Sessions Judge an order was passed for a retrial on the ground of misjoinder. In order to understand how the question of misjoinder arose certain facts have to be stated. There is a gentleman named Rai Banamali Rai Bahadur who is a zemindar. There is a prevailing practice in his estate that no one is allowed to slaughter cows. It appears that on the Baler-id day just before the occurrence some Mahomedans slaughtered a Cow. This was considered to be a breach of the practice of the estate, and on the 14th December four ...
Tag this Judgment!Gando Patuni and anr. Vs. Raju Patuni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.510
Woodroffe, J.1. The point which has been taken before us is this, that the Judge was wrong in holding that Section 27 of Act VIII of 1869 did not apply to the present suit. In so holding, he is supported by a decision referred to by the Munsif reported as Brojo Mohun De Sircar v. Sheikh Dengu 7 C.L.R. 141.2. We are invited, as was the Munsif, to consider some decisions under the Bengal Tenancy Act. Those decisions are not relevant and I would follow the reported decision and hold that the Judge was right.3. Moreover, it has been pointed out in the present case that there is a finding that the evidence shows that the plaintiffs and the other tenants have been in occupation of their respective lands without payment of rents for a considerable time, as they had to excavate a khal to drain off water from the fields at their own expense and trouble. And then further, there is a ground of appeal which is inconsistent with the rest and which the learned Pleader does not press, that the Courts...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Mohammad Sharafat Bahadur and anr. Vs. Shahzadi Wahida Sultan Be ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal655,28Ind.Cas.191
1. This is an appeal by two of the defendants in a suit by a Muhammadan lady, for realization of Rs. 1,25,000 as deferred dower from the assets left by her husband. According to the plaintiff she was married on the 27th February 1892, and her dower was at that time fixed at the sum claimed. Her husband died on the 8th February 1909 before any portion of the dower had been paid. The defendants are relations of the deceased husband of the plaintiff, his step-brothers and sisters, his nephews and nieces, who, it is said, claim a share in the estate by right of inheritance. The defendants pleaded that the dower had been fixed at Rs. 35,000 only and had been fully paid up. The parties, it may be stated, are governed by the Shia School of Muhammadan Law. The Subordinate Judge has found that the dower was fixed at Rs. 1,25,000 and that no portion thereof was paid by the husband during his life-timo. The Subordinate Judge has also held that although the plaintiff is in possession of the assets...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Baij Nath Goenka Bahadur Vs. Nand Kumar Singh,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal411(2),28Ind.Cas.876
Walmsley, J.1. These appeal arise under the following circumstances. An estate belonging to the respondents was sold for arrears of revenue under Act XI (B.C.) of 18.59 by the Collector of Monghyr, on January 2nd, 1900. The proprietors preferred appeals to the Commissioner of Revenue, and he passed orders on March 21st, 1900, setting aside the sale. On the application of the auction-purchasers, now the appellants, the Commissioner reviewed his order of March 21st and on June 21st, 1900, cancelled his order setting aside the sale, and instead, affirmed the sale.2. On June 20th 1901, the first respondent instituted a suit against the auction-purchasers (making his co-proprietors parties), praying for a declaration that the Commissioner's order reviewing his 'first order was ultra vires, for recovery of possession of his share of the estate, and for ' mesne profits, he also asked for the sale to be set aside if it was hold that the Commissioner's second order was not ultra vires, and did ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sabar Akunji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal756
Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.1. In this case it appears that one Sabar Akunji and a certain number of others were charged with the commission of a dacoity on the 23th of October 1913. Under Section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code pardon was tendered to Sabar Akunji and was accepted by him on the usual condition that he should make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence in question. In the Court, of the committing Magistrate it appears that Sabar Akunji did make a statement implicating himself and others in. the commission of the dacoity. But when the trial took place in the Court of the Sessions Judge he resiled from that statement, and professed complete ignorance of the matter. Thereupon, proceedings were taken against him and he was committed to the Court of Session to take his trial. The learned Sessions Judge has thereupon made this reference to this Court with a view to have it declared that the proceedings taken ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »