Kolkata Court April 1912 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.
W.C. Mcintosh Vs. Bidhu Bhusan Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.12
1. This is a claim case under Order XXI, Rule 58, in which the lower Court has dismissed the petition of claim. A Rule has been granted calling on the opposite party to show cause why the Subordinate Judge should not be directed to allow the claim of the petitioner on the facts found; to this Rule a clause has been added calling on the opposite party to show cause why the attachment obtained by him should not be set aside as being made without jurisdiction owing to a previous adjudication in insolvency made on the 19th September 1910. The facts of the case as found are as follows- On the 11th September 1909, a husband and wife, Mr. and Mrs. Sophianopulous, sold certain property to Mr. Philipopulous. This sale was not a bona fide one, which we understand to mean that it was entered into by Sophianopulous and Philipopulous for the purpose of shielding the property from the creditors of the former. On the 25th June 1910, Philipopulous sold the property to the claimant, who took possession...
Hari Kishan Bhagat Vs. Raja Kamaleshur Prashad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.374
1. This appeal is directed against the decree in a mortgage suit which has now lasted for a period of fifteen years. The plaintiff and defendant both challenge the validity of the decree in respect of the mode of calculation for interest.2. On behalf of the plaintiff, it is argued that the previous order of the Court, made on the 28th August, 1906, has not been properly carried out, inasmuch as upon a true construction of that order, interest at the rate stipulated in the bond ought to have been allowed upon the sum calculated to be due at the date of the institution of the suit and not merely upon the principal sum as determined by the Court to be payable out of the property in the hand of the defendant. In our opinion, there is no foundation for this contention. It may be conceded that the order of the 28th August 1906 is ambiguous. But as pointed out by Sir Arthur Strachey, C.J., in Bakar Sajjad v. Udit Narain Singh 21 A. 361 at p. 370 by Sir John Edge, C.J. in Amolak Ram v. Lachmi ...
Kenaram Akhuli and anr. Vs. Sristidhar Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.543
1. This is an appeal on be-half of two of the defendants in a suit for an injunction to restrain them from passing water from their land to to land of the plaintiffs, as also for recovery of damages. The plaintiffs are the owners of two parcels of land which adjoin a third parcel owned by the defendants. Towards' the south of this property, there is a tank not owned by either of the parties to the suit. The case for the plaintiff is that (he defendants have lowered the level of then' own land with the result that the water from this tank passes to the land of the defendants and subsequently overflows into the lands of the plaintiffs. The question, therefore, arises whether upon these facts the plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction against the defendants to compel them to raise an embankment for the benefit of the plaintiffs and also to recover damages already caused. The learned Vakil for the plaintiffs-respondents has con-tended, upon the authority of Rylands v. Fletcher L...
Mobarak Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.81
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Noakhali who, agreeing with both the assessors, convicted the appellant Mobarak Ali under Section 471 read with Sections 466, 474 and 193, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him under Section 471 road with Section 466 to rigorous imprisonment for five years and passed no separate sentence under Section 474 and Section 193.2. It appears that the accused, as the plaintiff in Suit No. 245 of 1910, filed a certified copy of a decree of the Munsif dated Sraban 1302 and in the certified copy filed by him he altered Sraban 1302 to Sraban 1301. The alteration is clear and apparent on the face of the document, and it is not now disputed. Now it is alleged by the prosecution that the only object in making this alteration was to establish that his mortgage was prior to that of the defendants, and that was the plea he took in his plaint, and the list of documents by which the plaint was to be supported contained this...
Emperor Vs. Bhika Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.484
1. This was a Reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Dinajpur recommending that the order passed by the Deputy Magistrate at head-quarters under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, directing the trial of the complainant under Section 211 and sending the case to the District Magistrate for orders should be set aside. At the same time, he informed us that there was a motion before him to order further inquiry into the matter. He did not think it proper to deal with it himself because it might prejudice our order in regard to the matter under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. He says it seemed to him that the proper course to take was to submit this Reference for decision before proceeding to dispose of the other motion.2. We need not, therefore, go into the point of necessity for further inquiry under Section 203, as we have dealt with it in a similar case to this in a somewhat lengthy judgment delivered this morning, in which we pointed out that the Government Circular, w...
ManiruddIn Sarkar Vs. Abdul Rauf
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.482
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Mymensingh to show cause why an order for further inquiry in this case should not be made and why the order for prosecution under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code passed should not be set aside on detailed grounds which, after considering the general allegations of the petitioner we ourselves formulated with some care. The learned Judge takes exception to the Rule on the ground, that these reasons, which, as we have said, we ourselves formulated with some care, are not grounds which were urged before him and this is an infringement of the spirit of the High Court's order that in revision, matters must first of all be urged before the first Court of revision. We do not think it is so. The matter was put before us by the learned Vakil in precisely the same general way in which it was put before the learned Judge, the principal arguments being, firstly, that on the evidence, further inquiry should be ordered, and, secondly, th...
RamdahIn Roy Vs. Dhanwantri Koer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.624
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit for rent. The question of law which requires consideration is whether the decree in a previous suit for rent by a co sharer of the plaintiff against the defendant, is admissible in evidence in proof of the rate of rent. The District Judge, in support of the view that the decree is admissible in evidence, has pointed out that the plaintiff was made a pro forma defendant in the previous suit for rent and has relied upon the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Ram Ranjan v. Ram Narain 22 C. 533 : 22 I.A. 60. Against this view, it has been argued for the appellant, on the authority of the decisions in the cases of Abdul Ali v. Rai Chandra Das 10 C.W.N. 1084 and Tepu Khan v. Rajani Mohun Das 25 C. 522, 2 C.W.N. 501, that the decree is not admissible in evidence, because it was obtained by a co-sharer landlord. In our opinion, there is no foundation for this contention. The case of Abdul Ali v. Raj Chandra Das 10 C.W.N. ...
Becha Ram Sahu Vs. Chamru Uraon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.837
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the plaintiff in a suit for rent. The sole point in controversy between the parties is, whether the claim for recovery of raikumats is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. It appears that in a previous suit for rent against some of the present defendants, a claim was put forward by the plaintiff for the recovery of raikumats. The claim was resisted by the defendants and an issue was raised whether (he defendants were liable to pay any raikumat. The Court came to the conclusion that raikumats were payable and made a decree accordingly. In the present litigation, the raikumats have been claimed again and the claim has been resisted. The Court of first instance allowed the claim but that decree has been reversed by the Judicial Commissioner on the authority of the decision in Orjoon Sahoo v. Anund Singh 10 W.R. 257. In support of the appeal, it has been contended that the decision in a suit for rent may operate as res judicata and that the answer to t...
Rutnessur Sen Vs. Kali Kumar Bidyabhusan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.701
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. In my opinion, we must set aside the judgment of Mr. Justice Coxe and restore the decree of the lower Appellate Court. The suit is one for the recovery of possession of an undivided half share of certain land, on the allegation that this share was included within a taluk Ram Ram Sen, of which the plaintiff was a purchaser at a revenue sale. The defence of the defendants was that as they were in possession, they were entitled to retain that possession by virtue of a permanent tenure ' created by a certain howla. The lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the defendants have failed to prove that the disputed land appertains to this particular howla. On appeal, however, Mr. Justice Coxe did not think that he was baund by that finding of fact, for it appeared to him that there had been an erroneous decision by the learned Judge as to the incidence of the onus of proof. He considered that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the lands in d...
Nand Kishore Singh Vs. Ram Gulam Sahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal1037
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. This is an application to review an order made by us under Order XLV of the Code of Civil Procedure. By that order we rejected an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, and we did so upon this ground. The learned vakil for the applicant, one of the most experienced and eminent vakils of this Court, immediately told us that though the value of the subject matter of an appeal to His Majesty in Council was upwards of Rs. 10,000, still the value of the subject matter of the suit was not Rs. 10,000, and consequently he could not support the application. The result was, it was rejected.2. It is now sought to obtain a review of this order under Section 114 of the Code and Order XLVII. It is objected on the part of the respondent that no such application can be made, and for the purposes of supporting that contention our attention has been drawn to a number of decisions in which it has been held that no appeal lies under the Letters Pate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »