Kolkata Court January 1915 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.
Kumar Krishna Mitter Vs. Amulya Charan Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal788,31Ind.Cas.616
Chitty, J.1. This is an application by Kumar Krishna Mitter, decree-holder in Suit No. 163 of 1914, asking that a fund of Rs. 4,650-2-7 lying in the hands of the Accountant-General of this Court to the credit of the said suit be, after payment of the petitioner's costs, divided rateably between the petitioner and Ram Chandra Ray Chaudhuri, execution-creditor in Suit No. 453 of 1910. The facts are as follows: Property which had belonged to Hari Das Mitter, deceased, was subject to a mortgage, dated 19th December 1901, in favour of Byomkesh Chuckerbutty. The mortgagee instituted a suit on his mortgage (No. 179 of 1911) making the representaives of Hari Das Mitter party defendants. The final decree in that suit, dated 15th January 1913, ordered a sale of the mortgaged property. The sale took place on 2nd May 1914, and after making the first and second payments prescribed by Section 73(1), proviso (c), (It does not appear that there were any subsequent incumbrances), there remained a sum o...
Abdul Rahman Sarkar Vs. Promode Behary Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.182
1. This appeal and the connected Rule No. 280 of 1914 (issued upon an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code) arise out of an application under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale of a holding in execution of a decree for rent.2. No appeal lies in this case, and we have, therefore, to consider the. question raised in the case in the Rule.3. The question for decision is, whether the petitioner had a locus standi to make the application under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code. The opposite parties are the landlords of the holding, which was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent due thereon against the tenant and purchased by the landlords themselves. The petitioner purchased the holding at a sale held in execution of a mortgage-decree against the tenant, prior to the sale for arrears of rent, and was in possession thereof. He applied to have the sale for arrears of rent set aside under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the...
Baid Nath Sahay Vs. Nanku Mahton and anr. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal801,29Ind.Cas.219
1. This second appeal arises out of a claim for recovery of arrears of rent and cesses. The only portion of the claim which is in dispute before us is the bhowli rent, and that is disputed both as regards the method of collection, namely, whether it is bhowli danabandi or bhowli batai, and as regards the share of the landlord.2. With regard to the Hrst point, it is urged before us in appeal that the lower Court was wrong in excluding the dibi papers, which were admitted in the first Court without objection and which were proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased patwari, whose duty it certainly was to keep the dibi papers. We think that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in excluding those papers. There is nothing in Section 32, Clause (2), which requires any formal proof that the papers are kept as a fact in the ordinary course of business. He appears to have confused Section 32, Clause (2), with Section 34 with which we have nothing to do in this case. The case will, there...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›