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.
Sheikh Samdani and anr. Vs. Kamalakant Jha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.424
Woodroffe, J.1. These appeals arise out of 15 rent suits; and the judgment now given governs all of them.2. I am of opinion that the learned District Judge was right in his dealing with the objection relating to the appointment of a guardian of the minors. It is argued that the lower Appellate Court should have held that the plaintiff No. 1 was not competent to institute a suit on behalf of the minor plaintiffs, that the only person who could institute a suit on their behalf was the guardian appointed by the Court, and, that as the minors were alleged to be necessary plaintiffs in the case, the suit was void and should have been dismissed. I think, however, that although the order appointing a guardian of the minors was originally a good order, when one of these minors came of age then the guardianship ceased ipso facto as regards him. As there cannot be a guardian of minors in the case of a joint Mitakshara family in which there are also adults, the guardianship ceased also as regards...
Mowar Kali Churn Singh Vs. Mowar Sheo Baksh Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.657
1. This is a suit for partition of property which was admittedly at one time a jagir of one Dhurup Singh, the common ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendants. It apparently descended to his eldest son, Bhukan Singh, but in Bhukan Singh's time was resumed, and after that was again granted in the name of Pahalwan Singh, the third son of Dhurup Singh, and not in the name of Baiju Singh the second son, who was the plaintiff's ancestor. It is a matter of controversy in this case whether the jagir was given exclusively to Pahalwan Singh or given to him as the representative of the whole family.2. Only one name is recorded as jagirdar in the Collector's Register. After Pahalwan Singh, Jhao Singh was recorded, after him, Odit Singh, after him, Ghinu Singh and after Ghinu, the present defendant No. 3, Nursing Dyal Singh. In the time of Ghinu Singh, a suit was brought by the present plaintiff for declaration of his rights, which seems to have been almost identical in nature with the present ...
Raimoni Dassi Vs. Mathura Mohan Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal1016
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of ijara rent, based upon an ijara kabuliyat executed by the defendant in favour of the predecessor in intei'est of the plaintiffs, whereby the defendant undertook to collect rent of 48 and odd has of lands for three years and agreed to pay to the lessor Rs. 400 a year.2. The defence was that the contract was not completed, as no pottah was granted by the lessor, that the lessor never allowed the defendant to take possession of the lands, that one hal of land (nine plots) which really belonged to the defendant had been fraudulently included in the kabuliyat which was executed with out full knowledge of its contents, and that as the kabuliyat was not corrected the defendant surrendered; the lease, that the kdbuliyat was never acted upon and that the defendant was not, therefore, liable to pay anything.3. The Court of first instance, finding all the above pleas in favour of the defendant, dismissed the suit. On appeal, t...
Saroda Prosad Roy Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Srimati Kailash Bashini Guha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.117
1. This is an appeal against a preliminary decree in a partition suit by the legal representatives of one out of many defendants. The plaintiffs-respondents' case is that a Taluk No. 4518 was partitioned with the result that the estate was divided among the co-sharers with the exception of two portions, one of these was a 3 annas, 4 gandas 3 karas and odd share, which was left as a residuary mehal and retained the number of the original taluk, that is 4518; treating this as 16 annas, the plaintiff claims a 3 annas 1 kara and odd share. The other is an undivided portion of the original taluk, being lands in the Mouzah Tilli, which were under water at the time of the partition, but which had reformed by the time of the suit. These were left ijmali, and in them the plaintiff now claims a 12 1/4 gandas share. Against the decree passed by the lower Court recognising these two claims with modifications, the appellant now raises four points; two of a preliminary nature, and two more directly ...
Shyama Charan Das Vs. Jogesh Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.292
1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for rent. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the lands of Schedule 1 appertained exclusively to hisyas Nos. 3, 11 and 6 in a revenue paying estate called Taraf Sambhuram, that hisyas Nos. 3 and 11 belonged to one Raj Kumar Roy, whose rights in hisya No. 3 were purchased at a revenue sale by the defendant No. 23 who again sold the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, as purchaser of Raj Kumar Roy's hisya No. 3, sued to recover his share of the rent against the defendant No. 1 making the other co-proprietors of the estate parties to the suit. In the alternative, he prayed that a decree for the entire rent might be passed on taking additional Court-fee from him. There was a further alternative claim for a certain share of the rent of the lands of Schedules 2, 3 and 4 which it is unnecesary to consider in these appeals.2. The defence, inter alia, was that the lands do not belong to hisyas Nos. 3, 11 or 6 but belong to a difference hisya (No. 2) o...
Arsadulla and ors. Vs. Munseb Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.349
1. The plaintiff-respondent sued for khas-possession of the land in dispute which he had purchased at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. The decree for rent was obtained by Ali Meah and others (the heirs of one Sameer Ali) who are said to have a royati interest in the lands, against the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who, it is alleged, were undev-7-aiyats under them. Plaintiff after his purchase served a notice under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for annulling the incumbrance of defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 denied both the royaii title of Ali Meah and others, and the under-royati title of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and set up their own royati right to the land.3. The Court of first instance disbelieved the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and held that Ali Meah and others had no royati right and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had no under-royati right and that their title, if any, had been extinguished by adverse possession for 12 years on t...
Chimniram Bakla Vs. Shibendra Kumar Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.519
1. The appellant in this case was the plaintiff in the Court below which dismissed his suit. The appeal has, with one important exception, been argued on the findings of fact arrived at by the lower Court: and the facts before as are as follows: Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 became indebted to defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in the ordinary-course of business and on the 14fch April 1904 executed a hatchitta in their favour. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 became insolvent and were adjudicated as such under the Indian Insolvency Act of 1843, 11 & 12 Vict., C. 21, on a creditor's petition, the vesting order being made on the 23rd September 1908. In spite of this order, the hatchitta in favour of the insolvents was assigned to the plaintiff on the 17th November 1904, with the consent of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. At the same time, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed the hatchitta now sued on in favour of the plaintiff. There was no consideration for the transfer by defendants N'os. 3 and 4 to the plaintiff, whi...
Rai Moni Dasi and ors. Vs. Mathura Mohan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.540
N. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of ijara rent, based upon as ijara kabuliat executed by the defendant in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, whereby the defendants undertook to collect rent of 48 and odd hits of land for four years and agreed to pay to the lessor Rs. 400 a year.2. The defence was that the contract was not completed as no pattah was granted by the lessor, that the lessor never allowed the defendants to take possession of the lands, that one hat of land (nine plots) which really belonged to the defendants had been fraudulently included in the kabuliat which was executed without full knowledge of its contents and that as the kabuliat was not corrected, the defendant surrendered the lease, that the kabuliat was never acted upon and that the defendant was not, therefore, liable to pay anything.3. The Court of first instance finding all the above pleas in favour of the defendant dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower A...
PulIn Behary Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.257
Richard Harington, J.1. In this case, 35 persons appeal against the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca convicting them under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and against the sentences varying from transportation for life to rigorous imprisonment for three years passed on them on that conviction. In the lower Court, 44 person were placed upon their trial of these, eight were acquitted; one of those convicted has not appealed and is said to have become insane. The remainder are the appellants before us.2. Stated, as shortly as possible, the case for the Crown is that the first appellant, Pulin Behary Das, founded an association known as the Dacca Anusilan Samity, that that association had branches or similar associations affiliated to it throughout Eastern Bengal, that the object for which the association was formed was for the purpose of bringing about revolution by force of arms and depriving the King of the sovereignty of British India, that the appellant...
B.E.M. Rodricks Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.955
Chaudhuri, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit geeks to recover the sum of Rs, 10,000 by way of damages for a false and malicious prosecution, said to have been conducted against him in the District of Rungpur, in which he says he was falsely accused of criminal breach of trust in respect of certain articles belonging to the Eastern Bengal State Railway, when he was employed as a servant of the Railway. He states that the criminal proceedings terminated in his acquittal, that such proceedings were taken maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause, and claims to be entitled to judgment against the Secretary of State for India in Council, for damages. It has not been argued before me, whether or not such a suit is maintainable against the Secretary of State for India in Council, the only point urged being that this Court has no jurisdiction under the Charter to entertain it. The argument on both sides has also proceeded upon the basis that the whole of the cause of action in this su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »