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.
Krista Chandra Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Ratan Ram Pal and ors. and Prasa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.673
1. This is and appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of Possession of a share of an estate on declaration of title by purchase. The share in dispute admittedly belonged originally to one Harendra Chnadra Chakravarty, who attained his majority on the 21st September 1908 During his minority, there was a scramble for the acquisition of this share by two sets of L persons, who may be called the Pals and the Chowdhurys. Oh the 19th March 1907, the Chowdhurys took a conveyance from the infant. On the 15th April 1907, the Pals took .another conveyance of the same share from Sarat Chandra Ohakravarty, the father of the infant, who was the de facto guardian and manager of his properties. On the 18th December 1909, the Chowdhurys took a second conveyance from Harendra with a view-to fortify their title, which was obviously open to attack as based on a conveyance executed by an infant. On the 1st August 1912, the Chowdhurys commenced this action for declaration of title and recovery of p...
Motilal Radhakissen Vs. Ganpatram and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.792
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against what purports to be an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, whereby an order of adjudication has been annulled. The respondents applied on the 24th July 1912 to be adjudicated insolvents under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The order of adjudication was made in due course under Section 16 on the 12th August 1912. Since then, a Receiver has been appointed and has taken charge of the assets. Proceedings were thereafter instituted under Section 43 on the allegation that the insolvents had misconducted themselves in the manner contemplated in that section. Pressed by these proceedings, the insolvents repeatedly applied under Section 42 to have the adjudication annulled. The application was refused on more than one occasion, but was ultimately granted on the 1st May 1915. The present appeal by one of the creditors is directed against that order and is supported on the ground that...
Bal Makund Ruita and ors. Vs. Mati Lal Burman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.195
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The contest of this appeal is as to the respective rights of a purchaser under a mortgage-decree and a lease-holder in possession who was not a party to the mortgage suit. The plaintiff in this suit is the purchaser and the contesting defendant is the lease-holder. The plaintiff prays for possession or in the alternative that the lease-holder be directed to redeem.2. The other defendants are the mortgagors and former claimants under mortgages or their representatives. The two mortgagors are Debendra Narayan, who is represented by defendant No. 3, and his brother Upendra Narain defendant No. 4. These brothers were the sons of Joy Narain Saha, a Hindu governed by the Bengal School of Law who died before the mortgages to which I will next refer. On his death each of these brothers became entitled to 1/4th share in the family property, their uncle, with whom we have no concern, being entitled to the other moiety.3. On the 3rd of May 1894, Debendra mortgaged his 1/4...
Jaharaddi Mandal Vs. Debnath Nath Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.762
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land, on declaration that it is included within his tenancy under the landlord defendants. The defendants disputed the title of the plaintiff to the eastern half of the land; as regards the western half, they pleaded that the plaintiff had willingly given it up for the establishment of a market thereon and had been granted lands in exchange elsewhere. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff was barred by the doctrine of estoppel or acquiescence. The Court of first instance found upon the question of title in favour of the plaintiff, held that he was not barred by the doctrine of estoppel or acquiescence and decreed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has affirmed the findings of the Trial Court, but, as in his opinion the plaintiff did not take active steps 'to prevent this spoliation,' he has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. On the present appeal the decision of the Subordinate Ju...
Kali Charan Nath and anr. Vs. Sukhada Sundari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.824
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders against an order in execution proceedings, and illustrates, what has been often stated before, that the difficulties of a litigant begin when he has obtained his decree. On the 16th September 1911 the appellants instituted a suit against one Mahim Chandra Chakrabarti for recovery of a large sum of money. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant died on the 27th November 1911. On the application of the plaintiffs, the three sons of the deceased, who were ostensibly his heirs and representatives, were brought on the record in his place. They did not object to the adoption of this course. The case was tried on the merits, and on the 8th May 1912 a decree was made against the persons supposed to be the heirs and representatives of the original debtor. The decree directed as usual that the judgment-debt be realised out of the estate of the deceased in the hands of the substituted defendants. On the 9th June 1913, the decree-holders applied fo...
Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury and Vs. Bharat Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.242
1. The events antecedent to the litigations, which have culminated in the present appeals, are no longer in controversy and may be briefly recited. The plaintiffs claimed title to the disputed property by purchase at a sale in execution of a mortgage-decree. They took possession, but were resisted by the defendants, and a breach of the peace became imminent. Proceedings were consequently instituted under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code; but as the Magistrate was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute, he attached it under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code, until a competent Court should determine the rights of the parties thereto or the person entitled to possession thereof. This order was made on the 25th April 1902. On the 3rd July and 11th October 1909 these suits were instituted by the two sets of plaintiffs who claim respectively an eight-annas and a five-annas share of the property, for declaration of t...
Ram Chunder Banka Vs. Rawatmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.672
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is a suit on an unregistered instalment bond executed by the defendant on the 6th November 1908. It is for a sum of Rs. 10,000 payable in annual instalments of Rs. 400, commencing from the 3Cth September 1909 (not 1899 as appears by mistake in the bond), it being agreed between the parties that in case of default of payment of the instalments, there was to be 'immediate payment of the sum of Rs. 10,000, or the unpaid part thereof or the unpaid instalment with interest from the date of default.' After reciting the agreement aforesaid, the third Clause of the bond runs thus: 'in case the said yearly payments of principal shall from any cause whatever not be paid upon the day hereinbefore mentioned for such payment, the said Rawatmull, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns shall forthwith pay to Golab Roy, Bhuramull and Ghanesham Dass, their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns the whole balance then remaining unpaid of the said sum of Rs. 10,000 or a...
National Bank of India, Ltd. Vs. A.K. Ghuznavi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.287
1. A question has arisen in connection with this matter as to the procedure to be followed and the requisites for obtaining an order under Order XXI, Rule 41, which corresponds to Order XLII, Rule 32, of the English Supreme Court Rules of 1883. In England an application has to be made by summons before a Master in Chambers. If the debtor has appeared to the writ by a Solicitor, the summons must be served at the address for service, and an affidavit to that effect is necessary. Although our Order XXI, Rule 41, is an amplification of Section 219 of Act VIII of 1859 modified by Section 267 of Act X of 1877, cases under it are rare. In fact a careful search among the records of this Court has resulted in the discovery of three cases only. It appears that those applications were made on verified tabular statements in the form directed by Order XXI, Rule 11, Sub-clause (2), and were ex parte. In the case of In Re: Premji Trikumdas 17 B. 514, the application appears to have been made ex parte...
Hansman Jha and anr. Vs. Bahuji Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.203
1. In this case a reference has been made to the Court of first instance under Rule 5, Order XLV of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of settling a dispute as to the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance. The Subordinate Judge has sent back his report, but he has not proceeded as the rule requires. The rule does not empower the Court of first instance to remit the investigation to some other officer, it must be carried out by that Court.2. The result in this case has been very unsatisfactory because the Subordinate Judge purports to have acted on an admission, the precise character of which we do not know except that it seems to be an admission made for the purpose of meeting the difficulty as to the value of the appeal and no more.3. The case must go back to the Subordinate Judge in order that he may himself make the enquiry as is required by Rule 5, Order XLV, and submit his report on the evidence produced before him....
Sarat Chandra Pal Vs. Benode Kumari Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.143
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioner, who is a Hindu widow, obtained Letters of Administration to the estate of her deceased husband and applied for permission to sell the dwelling house for the purpose of satisfying debts. She was opposed by the reversioner, who expressed his willingness to pay all just debts and to give her suitable maintenance. She however did not agree as evidently there is some ill-feeling against the reversioner. The learned Judge has given her the permission under Section 90 of the Probate and Administration Act and the reversioner appeals. A preliminary objection is taken that there is no appeal.2. Section 86 of the Act provides that every order made by a District Judge by virtue of the powers conferred by the Act upon him shall be appealable to the High Court under the rules contained in the Civil Procedure Code applicable to appeals. The order made by the lower Court is an order made under the powers conferred by Section 90. There is some difficulty, however, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›