Kolkata Court March 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.
Bireshwar Samanta and ors. Vs. Srimati Priya Sakhi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.917
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision oil the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan dated the 3rd October 1912, reversing the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage security and the only question that arises' in the present appeal is the question of limitation, and that questions whether when a mortgagor has been ousted from possession of the property, the possession of a third party becomes adverse also as against the mortgagee. The view that has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aimadar Mondul v. Makhan Lal Dey 33 C. 1015 : 10 C.W.N. 904 is that the possession in such a case would not be adverse against the mortgagee. That decision has been commented upon by Mr. Justice Mukerjee in his judgment in the case of Nandkumar Dobey v. Ajodhya Sahu 14 C.L.J. 292 : 11 Ind. Cas. 465 : 16 C.W.N. 209 : 21 M.L.J. 397 : 9 M.L.T. 264. The comments of the learned Judge will be found at Pages 298 and 299. The case has been further observ...
Nazimulla Vs. Wazidulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.385
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for establishment of a right of way. The plaintiffs came to Court on the allegation that they had used the disputed land as a path from time immemorial peaceably, openly and uninterruptedly; and that this was the only means of access to their land. The Courts below have found that the right of way as alleged by the plaintiffs has been established, and have made a decree accordingly. The only ground urged by the appellant against this decision is that the question of limitation has been erroneously decided, as the Subordinate Judge has held that Section 23 of the Indian Limitation Act is applicable to the case and consequently no question of, limitation arises. The obstruction is said by the plaintiffs to have been caused in 1908 and the suit was commenced on the 15th July 1911. It has been urged that Section 23 has no application to the case and that the Courts below should have investigated whether the obstruction was caused within...
Rajkumar Sarkel Vs. Rajkumar Mali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.767
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for two-fold relief on the ground of fraud. The case for the plaintiffs is that on the 8th June 1907, the defendant, by fraudulent suppression of processes, obtained an ex parte decree against them, for possession of the second property now in dispute, that the decree-holder not only executed the decree in respect of that property but also for realisation of the costs allowed to him, and that 'he thus managed to purchase the first property at the sale which followed without the issue of the usual notices and proclamation. The present suit was instituted on the 13th May 1911 to set aside the alleged fraudulent decree and to recover possession of both the properties. The Courts below have found that it is not open to the plaintiffs to have the alleged fraudulent decree vacated inasmuch as the time prescribed by Article 95 of the first Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act for the purpose had elapsed before the institution of the suit. Under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›