Court : Chennai
Reported in : 107Ind.Cas.136
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Sub Court of Tiruvalur passed on a petition by the President of the Board of Control of Sri Thyagaraja Swami Devasthanam of Tiruvalur. The Board of Control was appointed in pursuance of the scheme framed by this Court in A.S. No. 136 of 1920, on appeal from Order Section No. 52 of 1913, Temporary Sub Court, Tanjore.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents that no appeal lies The scheme framed by the High Court contains a clause (Clause27) that, any of the parties or the Board of Control as a body or the Advocate-General are at liberty to apply to the Court for any modification of the scheme. But the present application is not an application for any modification of the scheme and does not come under this Clause In the present application the President of the Board of Control complains that some of the Kattalaidars would not send complete budgets of their receipts and expenditure nor would deliver the cash in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1927Cal889
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain immoveable properties embodied in a bainapatra dated 4feh December 1920, executed by Kali Narain Sen Chowdhury who was the original defendant in the suit, and who will be referred to as the defendant henceforth. Kali Narain died during the pendency of the suit on 29th July 1922, and his Iegalfrepre3entatives have been substituted in his place. The suit was instituted on 30th June 1921. After service of summons, Krishna Kumar Sen, the second of the surviving sons of the defendant, and another person serving as manager under the defendant, presented a petition in Court on 29th July 1921, that the defendant, by reason of unsoundness of mind and mental infirmity was incapable of protecting his own interest and a guardian ad litem should be appointed for him. Thereupon the Subordinate Judge held that though the defendant was not mentally deranged and could fully und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1928Cal158
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the principal defendant, H.R. Chamaria & Co., who may shortly be described as Chamaria, against a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Dacca dated 21st December 1925. The suit, as framed, was on the ground that Chamaria was a tenant-at-will under one J.B. Sukeas who was the owner of the property in question. The plaintiff had purchased the right, title and interest of the legal representative of J.B. Sukeas in execution of a money-decree on 2nd May 1919. He was put into symbolical possession by virtue of his purchase on 18th July 1919. The purchase was made in the benami of his son, named Bepin Behary Pal who was joined as defendant 2 in the suit. On 4th August 1919 the plaintiff served notice on Chamaria determining the tenancy under which Chamaria was alleged to have held the property in question as from the end of August 1919. The present suit was brought on 17th September 1919, and the claim was for rent at the rat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 107Ind.Cas.72
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the principal 'defendant H.R. Chamaria and' Company, who may shortly be described as Chamaria, against a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Dacca, dated the 21st December, 1925. The suit as framed was on the ground that Chamaria was a tenant at will under one J.B. Sukeas who was the owner of the property in question. The plaintiff had purchased the right, title and interest of the legal representative of J.B. Sukeas in execution of a money decree on the 2nd May, 19l9. He was put into symbolical possession by virtue of his purchase on the 18th July, 1919. The purchase was made in the benami of his son named Bepin Behary Pal who was joined as defendant No. 2 in the suit. On the 4th August, 1919, the plaintiff served notice on Chamaria determining the tenancy under which chamaria was alleged to have held the property in question as from the end of August, 1919. The present suit was brought on the 17th September, 1919...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1928Cal256
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has bean preferred from certain orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Backergunge, on 17th February, 26th February and 1st March 1927, by which the learned Judge appointed a receiver in respect of properties which form the subject-matter of a suit now pending in his Court.2. It is necessary, in order to deal with the contentions that have bean urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal, to set out a few facts. One Babu Raj Chandra Roy Chowdhury died leaving three sons and two daughters. For the purposes of this appeal we are concerned with one of his sons, namely, Babu Behary Lal Roy Chowdhury, and the two daughters named Adya Sundari and Bidya Sundari. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are two of the sons of Babu Behary Lal Roy Chowdhury and defendant 1 is another son and the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the sons of a daughter of a predeceased son of the said Babu Behary Lal Roy Chowdhury. Defendant 2 is Bidya Sundari, herself and defendant 3 is a daughter of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1927Bom542
Marten, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza, dismissing, inter alia, a summons taken out on September 27, 1926, in two suits, Nos. 1405 of 1922 and 3104 of 1925. by Messrs. Tyabji Dayabhai & Co., attorneys for the plaintiff Hansraj Tejmal in the first suit. That summons asked for a declaration that the applicants had a lien on the sum of Rs. 3.572-9-8 then in the hands of the Sheriff of Bombay as received by him in Suit No. 3104 of 1925, and that by reason of that lien the sheriff do pay the said sum to the applicants in priority to the attaching craditors Messrs. Jetha Davji & Co., the plaintiffs in suit No. 3104 of 1925. Mr. Ju3tic Mirza, dismissed the summons; The applicants, the attorneys, appeal.2. The case raises a point of importance not only to the attorneys of this High Court, but also to the public, as the question turns on what is the exact right of attorneys in respect of what is generally described as a particular lien on funds recovered in a suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1927Cal562
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order male by Mr. Justice Greaves upon a motion on notice, dated the 12th of July 1926 headed. 'In the matter of an arbitration and in the matter of the state of Babu Eajendra Lal Goswami.' It appears that Rajendra Lal Goswami died in August 1917 and that he left a Will which was proved on the 19fch of December of that year. By that Will be left various items of immovable property to various persons and made very complicated provision for the discharge of certain monies which were owing by him more particularly to persons who had money with him on deposit. Disputes and complications having arisen, there was an arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act by Mr. Byomkesh Chakravarti. He filed, his award which is dated the 29th of July 1918.2. Now, according to the procedure provided under the Indian Arbitration Act that award when filed could be challenged under the Act on various grounds, but if it was upheld by the Court as a good award, the po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1927All598
Mukerji, J.1. Mr. Jageshar Prasad Shukul states that the nature of the transaction between him and the bank was like this: Jageshar Prasad having some money to spare for investing in loans he handed over the money to the Union Bank and received a note-book in which it was stated that the money was for safe custody. As a matter of agreement and practice, however, Mr. Jageshar Prasad used to secure borrowers who would agree to pledge ornaments by way of security. The borrower was taken by Jageshar Prasad to the manager of the bank or he would go to the manager of the bank with a note from Mr. Jageshar Prasad. The ornament was kept by the bank by way of security and money was advanced on an interest of 12% per annum. Out of this interest Jageshar Prasad used to get 9% and the bank 3%. No money of Jageshar Prasad used to be lent out by the bank without any security of ornaments. Similarly when a man came to redeem his ornaments he would either take Jageshar Prasad to the bank or take a not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 100Ind.Cas.62
Mukerji, J.1. Mr. Jageshar Prasad Shukul states that the nature of the transaction between him and the Bank was like this. Jageshar Prasad having some money to spare for investing in loans he handed over the money to the Union Bank and received a note-book in which it was stated that the money was for safe custody. As a matter of agreement and practice, however, Mr. Jageshar Prasad used to secure borrowers who would agree to pledge ornaments by way of security. The borrower was taken by Jageshar Prasad to the Manager of the Bank or he would go to the Manager of the Bank with a note from Mr. Jageshar Prasad. The ornament was kept by the Bank by way of security and money was advanced on an interest of 12 per cent, per annum. Out of this interest Jageshar Prasad used to get 9 per cent, and the Bank 3 per cent. No money of Jageshar Prasad used to be lent out by the Bank without any security of ornaments. ,Similarly when a man came to redeem his ornaments he would either take Jageshar Prasa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1927Cal481,103Ind.Cas.561
Chatterjea, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against an order passed by Greaves and Panton, JJ., on the 8th Jan. 1926, directing the removal of the Receive appointed by Dist. Judge of Hooghly from a portion of the property in suit.2. The suit was instituted on the 8th January 1922 by certain persons (who may be referred to as the original plaintiffs) under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, with the sanction of the Collector, for the removal of the defendant from the office of mohunt of Tarakeswar, for appointment of a fit person as mohunt or trustee, for a declaration that the properties claimed by the defendant as his personal properties are debutter, for framing a scheme of management and for various other reliefs. The Defendant was charged with having attempted to set up a title adverse to the trust with respect to many properties, with misappropriation of large sums of money and moveables belonging to the debutter, with mismanagement a...
Tag this Judgment!