Kolkata Court August 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.
Dina Nath Das Vs. Rama Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.702
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to land, for confirmation of possession, and for the issue of a permanent injunction upon the defendants to restrain them from acts of interference with the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the disputed property. The case for the plaintiff is that he purchased the land on the 6th May 1882 from the widow of one Golak Prosad, and that notwithstanding his possession on the basis of this purchase, his name was not registered by the Settlement Authorities at the time of the periodical Settlements. The order in the first of these Settlements was made adversely to the plaintiff in 1898, and this was repeated in 1908. The plaintiff states that the defendants, encouraged by these entries, have raised obstacles to his peaceful possession of the disputed property since the 28th November 1907; he was consequently driven to institute this suit on the 4th April 1910. The defendants pleaded, first, that the ven...
Ramnath Gagoi Vs. Pitambar Deb Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.430
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff for recovery of eight elephants or, in the alternative, of their price. The facts material for the determination of the rights of the parties lie in a narrow compass, and may be briefly narrated. The defendant, the Gossain of Garamur Satra, took a lease from Government of the Dayang Dhausiri Mahal No. 6 in the district of Sibsagar for the purpose of catching elephants during the years 1909-1910 and 1910-1911. The license fee was Rs. 2,750 per annum. On the 3rd July 1909, the defendant took the plaintiff as a partner in the venture, and the terms settled between them are set out in a letter of that date written by the defendant to the plaintiff. The contract was subsequently embodied in a formal deed of agreement executed on the 24th November 1909. The substance of the arrangement was that the plaintiff became a partner to the extent of a half share, and was authorised to manage the works, such as building stockades, catching elephants, &c.; It was ...
Abdul Rahaman Vs. Sarafat Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.896
1. We are invited in this appeal to consider whether a sale of the properties of the appellant in execution of an ex parte mortgage-decree, should stand confirmed. The sale was held on the 2nd November 1911 and was confirmed on the 13th December following. The decree-holder, who had himself become the purchaser, forthwith transferred the property to another person. On the 19th August 1912, the judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside; he alleged that the sale had been irregularly and fraudulently held and had caused him substantial injury. He joined as opposite parties to his application, both the decree-holder auction-purchaser and the assignee from him. At the same time, he instituted proceedings to have the ex. parte decree itself set aside. On the 22nd February 1913, the application to set aside the ex parte decree was granted. Thus, on the 28th July 1913, when the Munsif took up for disposal, the application to set aside the sale, he found that the ex parte decree had al...
Chatterjee BrahmIn Vs. Durgadutt Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.394
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiff in a suit to set aside what has been described as an ex parte decree. The circumstances under which the decree in question was obtained against the plaintiff are beyond controversy. The first three defend ants had a six-annas share in a partner ship business under a deed dated the 21st April 1909, while the plaintiff and the fourth defendant who are relations had each a five annas share. On the 24th May 1912 the first three defendants, who were, at the time, infants, instituted a suit against the plaintiff and the fourth defendant for dissolution of partnership, for adjustment of accounts, for appointment of a Receiver and for other incidental reliefs. The claim was valued at Rs. 22.000. At that time the plaintiff, who was then the second defend ant was stated on the face of the plaint to be resident beyond the limits of British India namely, at Somaser in Rajputana. The fourth defendant, who was the first defendant in that suit, was a...
Nripendra Nath Sahu and ors. Vs. Ashutose Ghosh, Receiver to the Estat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.548
1. These two appeals arise from an order made on remand by the learned Additional District Judge of the 24-Parganas in an insolvency matter. It appears that Babu Ashutose Ghosh, the Receiver in bankruptcy to the estate of Nilratan Mondal and others, sought to set aside three mortgage-deeds on the ground that they were void against him under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The insolvency proceedings were started by one Kissen Chand Kesori Chand, a creditor of Nilratan Mondal, for Rs. 2,500 at the instigation, it is said, of Mr. Palit, a secured creditor, for Rs. 45,000 odd who had advanced Rs. 5,000 to Gopinath Mondal, the appellant in Appeal No. 6, to give to Nilratan his brother-in-law on a note of hand dated the 1st March 1911. It further appears that Gopinath had advanced Rs. 1,200 on a note of hand dated the 17th June 1911 and Rs. 2,000 on a note of hand dated the 1st December 1611, both of which sums he had borrowed from Dr. Satya Charn Mukerjee, the next heaviest sec...
Nawab Khajah Hobibullah Vs. Khajah Abtiakallah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.693
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. We are invited in this appeal to consider the propriety of an order for the appointment of a Receiver in respect of the subject-matter of the litigation in the Court below. The suit relates to the title to the office of mutwali of an endowment created on the 10th March 1847 and the contesting parties are the rival claimants to that office, which was held by Nawab Sir Sulimulla up to the time of his death on the 16th January 1915. The Subordinate Judge has granted the application for the appointment of a Receiver, on the ground that it is just and convenient that a Receiver should be appointed under Clause (1), Rule 1, of Order XL of the Code of 1908. On behalf of the defendant it was contended before him that the grounds which justify the appointment of a Receiver had not been established. The Subordinate Judge was, however, of opinion that he had a wide discretion under Rule 1 of Order XL of the Code, and could appoint a Receiver if he thought it just and conve...
Upendra Nath Bose Vs. Bindeshri Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.468
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. Jaikaran Lal, a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara School of Law, died in 1865, leaving him surviving his widow Musammat Jasoda Koer and his daughter Musammat Lochan Koer. Musammat Lochan Koer was married to Deonath Sahai, and the plaintiff Bindeshri Prosad is the sole surviving male issue of the marriage.2. Bindeshri instituted this suit on the 14th April 1909 against Upendra Nath Bose and others and he seeks a declaration that he is the sole reversionary heir of Jaikaran Lal and on the death of his grandmother Musammat Jasoda Koer and Musammat, Lochan Koer he became entitled to the present possession of the entire estate, left by his maternal grandfather. He seeks the further declaration that the mokurari lease granted by Musammat Lochan Koer to Uma Shankar Prosad under patta and kabuliat dated the 20th August 1893, in respect of 8-annas share in Mauzas Pertappore, Chergerwa, Rokshi and Gajhanda appertaining to Mahal Kother, Touzi No. 3142, District Gaya, is no...
Loke Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Gaju Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.426
1. This appeal is directed against an order in proceedings in execution of a decree for delivery of possession of land made on the 17th September 1903. The question in controversy is, whether an application for execution of this decree, made on the 7th May 1910, is barred by limitation. The Courts below have concurrently held that the application is not barred. We are now invited by the judgment-debtors to hold that this view is erroneous in law. For the determination of the question raised before us, it is necessary to recapitulate the essential: facts, which are all admitted.2. The plaintiffs sued two sets of persons, who may be called A and B, for recovery of possession of land. A petition of compromise was filed on behalf of some of the defendants. The Court came to the conclusion that the compromise was operative only as regards some of them (A) and gave effect to it to that extent. The suit was heard on the merits as against all the other defendants (B). The result was a two-fold...
Khagendra Nath Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Sonatan Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.987
1. The facts connected with the litigation out of which these appeals arise, may be stated as follows.2. The lands in dispute are included in a Permanent tenure called Taluk Kamdeb Guha appertaining to the zemindari mahal No. 2694 belonging to the plaintiff-appellant. The taluk was sold in execution of a rent decree and purchased by one Ganga Charan in 1864, who sold it to four persons, Ramsagar, Gokul, Krishnapriya and Chandrakala, who were members of the Guha family to whom the taluk belonged before the sale under the rent-decree. The first three mortgaged a 14-annas 4-gundas share of the taluk to certain persons who sued and obtained a decree upon the mortgage and one Chandra Kumar Bose ostensibly purchased the said share at the sale held in execution of the said decree, but it has been found that Chandra Kumar was the benamdar of the said mortgagors. The fourth purchaser from Ganga Charan, viz., Chandrakala, appears to have had a 1-anna 16-gundas share in the taluk, which on her de...
Mohesh Chandra Chaudhury Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1915
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.871
1. These are two appeals by Nosha Mia and Mohesh Chandra Chaudhury who were convicted of forgery and abetment of forgery respectively, and sentenced, Nosha Mia to six months' rigorous imprisonment, and Mohesh Chandra Chaudhury to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The case is a somewhat peculiar one. It appears that Nosha Mia was proposing to sell some property to another pen-on of the same name. A Kobala was written out by Nosha Mia--the appellant--on a stamp paper of Rs. 5. The Kobala was to have been executed sometime in May 1914 and bore the date 23rd May written by the appellant Nosha Mia. The sale having fallen through, it became necessary to apply to the Collector for a refund of the stamp duty. The appellant Nosha Mia took advice with regard to this and he was told that no refund would be made after two months. The other appellant Mohesh Chandra Chaudhury, who is a Pleader's clerk of some three years' standing, gave him this advice, and also told him that he might alter the date...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »