Kolkata Court January 1911 Judgments
Basanta Coomar Goswami Vs. Kumudini Dasee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal428
Stephen, J.1. In this case I am asked to make an order upon the defendant to disclose certain documents and to allow inspection of them. The suit is one in which the plaintiff sues for commission in respect of a loan which was in feet never effected, but in respect of which the proposed borrower and lender were brought together. The defendant against whom the order is sought has already filed an affidavit of documents under Order XI, Rule 13. The plaintiff asks for discovery and inspection of the documents of which he has annexed a list to his affidavit.2. He is met by an argument on the part of the defendant: that her affidavit of documents precludes any further application of this kind. This is an argument which I do not think is sustainable in this Court.3. Looking at the policy of Order XI and at the language of Rule 18, para. 2, I do not think the defendant is thereby protected from an obligation to give inspection of other documents that may be proved to be in her possession.4. S...
Tag this Judgment!Arnold Vs. Arnold
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal907,13Ind.Cas.491
Woodroffe, J.1. In this case the petitioner asks for the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. He has been served with a notice by the petitioner. But he has entered no defence on either of the charges and he does not appear in this appeal. Adultery has been sought to be proved in this case both by admissions oral and documentary and other acts from which it is contended adultery should be inferred. In particular in a letter of 23rd April, 1910, which wrote to the petitioner, he Writes as follows : 'I believe that you are charging me with, adultery with a certain lady in the Company and cruelty in Calcutta, both of these charges I am bound to admit to, as you have probably 3ecured substantial proofs as to the cruelty which has occurred during passion I sincerely regret. I shall not defend the case under the circumstances.' I have no doubt that 'the lady in the Company' is Miss Kneller, There has been no question of any other.2. Another ...
Tag this Judgment!Promodini Chowdhurani Vs. Banga Chandra Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.306
1. This is an appeal nominally from a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge dated the 31st August 1908, but really from his order of that date setting aside the judgment of the Court, below and remanding the case to that Court for a re-trial. The matter was before the learned Subordinate Judge under the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. The Judge realised that he had no power under Section 562 or 566 to make the remand. He purported to do so under some inherent power of the Court. It has been frequently held in this Court that the subordinate Courts had no power to make such remands. It appears that the learned Subordinate Judge admitted certain documentary evidence, which was produced for the first time before him on the appeal, and he thought that it was necessary to have the case re-tried by the Court of first instance in the light of that evidence in addition to the evidence already on the record. This was unfortunately not in accordance with the law as it then stood. It was open ...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Kumar Bidyaratna Vs. Srimati Misri Jan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.307
1. The plaintiffs in this case are the heirs of one Khadim Ali, the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and the father of plaintiffs Nos, 2 and 3. They sued for a declaration of their ryoti right to the land in suit as haying been purchased by Khadim Ali from the heirs of one Neyamat Ali. The plaintiffs also claimed khas possession of the lands with mesne profits.2. Both the Courts below have granted the plaintiffs a decree, and the first defendant has appealed.3. The facts are as follows: The land in suit belonged to Neyamat Ali. Neyamat Ali died, leaving two sons, Rajjab Ali and Fazul Rahman, three daughters, Kamaljan, Misri Jan, (plaintiff No. 1) and Aloke Jan, and a widow, Petan Bibi, as his heirs. A decree had been passed in favour of defendant No. 1 against all the heirs of Neyamat Ali. On the 9th of July 1904, four of those heirs, namely, Rajab Ali, Fazul Rahaman, Kamal Jan and Misri Jan purported to sell the land in dispute to Khadim Ali, the husband of Misri Jan. It has been found as a...
Tag this Judgment!Johan Smidt Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal425
Harington, J.1. This rule must be discharged. Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act gives the Court power, inter alia, to order a new trial to be held. It has been argued by learned Counsel in support of the rule that the Court can only exercise the power under Section 38 if a question of law arises, but I find no such limitation in Section 38, and I think that the judgment in the case of Sassoon v. Hurry Das Bhukcut (1896) I.L.R. 24 Cale. 455, shews that a new trial may be ordered where the judgment is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.2. The rule must he discharged with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Malik Fazlar Rahaman Vs. Jawahir Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.383
1. This appeal is directed against an order passed on the 28th May 1910, by the Court below confirming a sale in execution of a mortgage decree. The principal ground upon which the order is assailed is that the appellant was not allowed sufficient opportunity to prove his case and to show that he had suffered substantial injury by reason of material irregularity in the proceedings. We are of opinion that this ground has been amply established. The sale took place on the 21st February 1910, when the properties were purchased by the decree-holder for Rs. 34,840. The allegation of the judgment-debtor is that the properties are worth at least Rs. 1,60,000 and that there have been grave irregularities in connection with the sale proceedings. To one of these, our attention has been pointedly invited. It has been stated to us that on the 21st December 1909, the sale proclamation was published and it included a statement to the effect that the property would be sold subject to the charges unde...
Tag this Judgment!Debilal and anr. Vs. Dhajadhari Goshami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.577
1. This was a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Sahabad to show cause why the order to prosecute the petitioners under Sections 466, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction inasmuch as the sanction of the Civil Court was necessary, because the petitioners are only liable to be tried as abettors or joint offenders with the party to the probate suit.2. As regards the charge under Section 467 of forging the Will and abetting such forgery by the attesting witness there is, we find, a strong body of authority in the Madras, Bombay and Allahabad Courts that sanction is not necessary against any person who is not a party to the suit and that witnesses are; not to be considered parties to the suit. Moreover, the Judge is not competent to grant such sanction even if it is asked for against any but the actual parties in the case before him. We have considered the cases of Eadara Virana v. Queen 3 M. 400; In re Devje v...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Girija Nath Roy Choudhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.910
1. This is a Rule for amendment of the decree of this Court in Girija Nath Roy Chowdhury v. Svrendra Nath Roy Chowdhury 16 C.L.J. 1 : 16 Ind. Cas. 84. It has been contended, in the first place, that an order ought to have been made under Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act for refund of the fee paid on the memorandum of appeal, to (he then successful appellants and that the amount ought not to have been) entered in the decree so as to throw an unnecessary burden upon the unsuccessful respondents. This contention is obviously just. We, therefore, now make an order under Section 13 of the Court-Fees' Act and direct that Rs. 285 which was paid on account of Court-fees on the memorandum of appeal to this Court by the plaintiffs-appellants be refunded to them, The decree of this Court will be amended by the omission of this sum.2. It has been contended, in the second place, on behalf of the petitioners that the decree ought not to have contained a direction for payment of the costs of the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Akhoy NaraIn Maiti, a Muktiar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.362
Woodroffe, J.1. This is a reference under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act., in the matter of Akhoy Narain Maiti, a muktiar of the Court of the District Judge of Midnapur, ordinarily practising in the Court of the Munsif of Contai, who was called upon by the District Judge to show cause why he should not be reported to this Court for having been guilty of conduct unbecoming a legal practitioner, in that (to use the language of the report) 'being karta of a joint family and a Muktiar of the Court, he has misused his position by repeatedly and flagrantly harassing the members of the family, setting up false claims and entering upon false defences,' as found in certain judicial records which were referred to in the report of the learned District Judge and which have been mentioned to us here.2. Three litigations have been specifically referred to, namely, Suit No. 955 of 1907, the decision in which was affirmed on appeal on the 20th February 1908; Suit No. 16 of 1908, the decisio...
Tag this Judgment!BepIn Behari Mitter and ors. Vs. Tinkowri Pathak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.374
1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has resulted in this appeal, consists of parcels of chakran lands in Mauzah Chandpur, within the Zemindari of the Maharajah of Burdwan. One Karuna Nidhan Singh held the mauzah under a putni lease, granted on the 24th August 1882. In 1898, the chakran lands in dispute were resumed by the Government and transferred to the zemindar under the provisions of the Village Chaukidars Act, 1870. The putnidar, Karuna Nidhan, took possession of the lands, apparently on the assumption that they were included within the putni, and he was consequently entitled to hold them subject to the payment of rent to the zemindar. On the 1st May 1900, the defendants to the present suit were settled on the lands by the putnidar as cultivating ryots, and they have been in possession ever since by payment, of rent to him. On the 15th October 1903, Karuna Nidhan deposited rent in the office of the zemindar on account of the chakran lands, included in mauzah Chandpur, a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »