Kolkata Court May 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.
Habiram Das and ors. Vs. Hem Nath Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.690
1. This is an appeal by the first three defendants in a suit for confirmation of possession of land on declaration of title. The plaintiff seeks relief in respect of an one-fourth share of an estate; the Courts below have made a decree in his favour to the extent of one-sixth share-Upon this appeal, the decree of the District Judge has been assailed on two grounds, namely, first, that the suit was barred under the provisions of Clause (f) of Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886; and, secondly, that the District Judge has erroneously determined the share of the plaintiff to be one-sixth instead of one-twelfth, by improper exclusion of evidence which was legally admissible. In our opinion, there is no substance in the first contention, but there is no answer to the second objection.2. As regards the first ground, we observe that Clause (f) of Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation provides that no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in the distribu...
Biseswar Gangooly and anr. Vs. Bhagabati Charan Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.26
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title to land and for recovery of joint possession thereof along with the defendants. The land in dispute is included in an estate owned jointly by the plaintiffs and the defendants. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants were dispossessed by the proprietor of a neighbouring estate, who took possession of the land on the assertion that it formed part of his estate. Subsequently, the defendants took a lease of this land from the adverse possessor. The plaintiffs, assert that as the defendants are their co-sharers, their possession cannot be treated as adverse to them. The Courts below have concurrently overruled this contention, which appears to us to be wholly unfounded.2. Reliance has been placed by the plaintiffs on the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Corea v. Appuhamy (1912) A.C. 230 : 81 L.J. P.C. 151 : 105 L.T. 836 where Lord Macnaghten stated, with regard to the possession of a co-owner, that hi...
Thakur Madan Mohun Nath Sahi Deo Vs. Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Sahi De ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.22
1. This is an appeal against the order of a Revenue Officer empowered to hear rent suits under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act who, in execution of the decree of another Deputy Collector for Rs. 11,103 and odd, passed an order in execution that a warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtor returnable by the 25th February should be issued in spite of the judgment-debtor's objections. Those objections as far as we have been able to understand them have been repeated here, and the first is that the decree for rent of Kairo, Perganah Khukra, is not a decree for the rent of the entire tenure. The learned Deputy Collector unnecessarily discusses this point, and incidentally misreads the decision of this Court in Chandra Nath Tewari v. Protap Udai Nath Sake 23 Ind. Cas. 105 : 18 C.W.N. 170. But with that we have nothing to do, inasmuch as the executing Court is not entitled to go beyond the decree, and the decree shows that the rent was for the entire village, which is certainly an entire unit...
Kailas Chandra Bhaumick and ors. Vs. Bejoy Kanta Lahiri Chowdhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1915
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.177
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to grant a permanent lease, made orally on the 30th December 1908. There is no dispute as to the identity of the property, the annual rent fixed and the premium payable. A sum of Rs. 400 was paid on account of the premium on the day following the agreement but, though subsequently the plaintiffs tendered the balance, Rs. 900, the defendant declined to execute the lease. The plaintiffs were consequently driven to seek the assistance of the Court. The Court of first instance overruled the objections taken by the defence and made a decree for specific performance. On appeal the District Judge has set aside that decision on the ground that there was no concluded agreement, first, because, the time of the commencement of the please was not specified, and secondly, because the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they had tendered the balance of the premium within the period stipulated. Before this Cour...
Sanatan Chakravarti Alias Amrita Lal Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Srimati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.925
1. The admitted facts of the case are that one Kala Chand Naskar died leaving three sons, Gopinath, Hem and Uma Charan and a widow, Muktakeshi. Uma Charan was a minor at the time. Gopinath Hem and Muktakeshi on behalf of the minor mortgaged 16 annas of certain property to defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 5 sold the mortgage to the grandfather of the appellants, defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Jadunath, the father of the appellants, brought a suit on the mortgage against Hem alone, as Muktakeshi, Gopinath and Uma Charan were all dead at the time. It appears, however, that Gopinath left a widow, who is the plaintiff and who was not made a party to, the mortgage suit. A decree was made in favour of Jadunath, and Jadunath in execution of his decree purchased the mortgaged property. One Go pal Chandra Ghose having obtained a money-decree against Jadunnth sold the right, title and interest of Jadunath in execution and purchased it him.self. Gopal Chandra then sold the right so purchased by him to ...
Guru Pada Haldar Vs. Tarit Bhusan Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1915
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.141
1. At the hearing of an appeal from an original decree in a partition suit the dispute between the parties was settled by the plaintiffs agreeing to purchase the share of the defendant No. 1, at a price to be fixed by the Court of first instance. By consent of parties a decree was made to the following effect: 'The plaintiffs do pay to the defendant No. 1 the price so ascertained within one month from the date of the valuation being made and upon such payment being made the defendant No. 1 do convey her share to the plaintiff.' This order was made on the 4th of June 1903 in this Court. The case then want back to the Subordinate Judge, who fixed the value at Rs. 26,290 and on the 12th of December 1905 passed a supplementary decree directing the plaintiffs to pay that amount and the defendant No. 1 to execute a conveyance. There was an appeal to this Court and it was held that no appeal lay as no supplementary decree should have been passed and that the only decree in the case was the de...
Raj Mohan De Vs. Mati Lal Saha Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.331
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in an action in ejectment. On the 16th January 1904, the defendant took a lease of homestead land from the plaintiff, at a rent of Rs. 35 per month, for a term of 10 years. The lease provided that the rent for each month would be paid on the last day of the previous month, and default was made in respect of rent for three successive months the tenancy would be forfeited. It is not disputed that the rent payable on the 13th April, 14th May, 14th June and 16th July 1906 was not duly paid. On the 19th July 1906, the defendant paid Rs. 70 as the rent of the two instalments due on the 13th April and 14th May and took a receipt therefor. Default was thereafter made in respect of the rent due on the 16th August 1906. The result was that this suit was instituted on the 31st August 1906 for ejectment of the defendant, on the ground that the tenancy had been forfeited by reason of default in payment of the three successive instalments of...
Brijnandan Singh Vs. Bidya Prasad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal1068
Jenkins, C.J., Woodroffe, Mookerjee, Holmwood and D. Chatterjee JJ.1. The questions referred for decision to a Full Bench have been framed in these terms:(i) Whether the decision, of the Full Bench in the case of Luchmun Dass v. Giridhur Chowdhry (188(sic)) I. L. R. 5 Calc. 855 has been overruled by the Privy Council or superseded by subsequent legislation.(ii) Whether a suit upon a mortgage effected by a father governed by the Mitakshara Law for a debt which is neither antecedent nor for family purposes and not proved to be immoral brought after the death of the father against the sons, some of whom were adult and some minors at the time of the mortgage, is governed by the twelve years' rule of limitation under Article 182 of the schedule to the Limitation Act so far as it claims to affect the share of the sons.2. We have been invited by the plaintiffs respondents to answer the first branch of the first question in the affirmative; they rely upon the decision of the Judicial Committee...
Sheikh Muhammad Saddiq Vs. Babu Durga Prasad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1915
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.189
1. This second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Gaya, decreeing the appeal, in his Court and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff with costs in both Courts but without costs against the Collector.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: A mokarari tenure was sold for arrears of rent and purchased ostensibly in the name of the appellant before us. He applied to the Collector to issue notice to some under-tenure-holders that the incumbrances were annulled. The Collector, being apparently misled by the statement which also appears in the plaint that the property is 8-annas share in a village belonging to the Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narain Singh of Tikari decided that the plaintiff had no power to annul the incumbrances and refused to issue the notice. The plaintiff thereupon brought two suits in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for declaration that he was the purchaser in execution of a decree for arrears of rent of the mokarari tenur...
Bidya Prosad Singh Vs. BhupnaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.629
1. The questions referred for decision to a Full Bench have been framed in these terms;2. (1) Whether the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Luchmun Dass v. Giridhur Chowdhry 5 C. 855 : 6 C.L.R. 473 : 3 Shome L.R. 143 has been overruled by the Privy Council or superseded by subsequent legislation.3. (2) Whether a suit upon a mortgage effected-by a father governed by the Mitakshara Law for a debt which is neither antecedent nor for family purposes and not proved to be immoral, brought after the death of the father against the sons, some of whom were adult and some minors at the time of the mortgage, is governed by the twelve years rule of limitation under Article 132 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, so far as it claims to affect the shares of the sons.4. We have been invited by the plaintiffs-respondents to answer the first branch of the first, question in the affirmative; they rely upon the decision of the Judicial Committee in Nanomi Babuasin v. Modhun Mohun. 13 C. 21 : 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »