Kolkata Court January 1913 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.
C.E. Grey Vs. Walker, Goward and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.753
Fletcher, J.1. In this suit, Mr. Charles Edward Grey, the Official Assignee of Bengal, and as such assignee of the property of Gurmukh Roy Kadia, an insolvent, sues three gentlemen, who carry on business in co-partnership together under the style of Messrs. Walker, Goward and Company, to recover Rs. 3,199 2 9 as damages in respect of a breach of two contracts for the sale of sugar. The contracts were both dated the 15th of August 1910, and were both for the sale of 50 tons of Java sugar delivered over July, August, September and October 1911, by instalments of 12 1/2 tons each month.2. On the 15th June 1911, Gurmukh Roy Kadia was adjudicated an insolvent, he being in the adjudication order described as carrying on business under the style of Gurmukh Roy-Ramesha and no steps were taken by the Official Assignee until the 13th of September 1911 for the purpose of completing these contracts. On the 13th of September 1911, Mr. Grey wrote to the defendants in these terms: 'I have to give you...
Kumar Satya NaraIn Singh, Miner, by His Next Friend and Uncle, Sasi Bh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1913
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.406
1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Dumka rejecting the plaintiff's application for the appointment of a Receiver. The plaintiff, who is still a minor, has by his next friend brought this suit for construction of a document purporting to be the Will of his father, Raja Udit Narain Singh, for a declaration that two documents, dated 8th March 1898 and 14th August 1905, respectively, are void and inoperative, so far as they purport to curtail the plaintiff's rights, and for possession of the properties left by his deceased father. The plaintiff also asks for administration of his father's estate, for the appointment of a Receiver and for an injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the estate. The defendants are Rani Keshabati Kumari, widow of Raja Udit Narain Singh, Gajadhar Parshad Singh and Chandra Doyal Bamm, whom defendant No. 1 purported to appoint trustees by the deed of 14th August 1905, and Devsi Hirji who has taken a lease of the forests ...
Syed Mookram Ali Vs. the Cuttack Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.651
1. The petitioner has been convicted under Clause (2) of Section 273 of the Bengal Municipal Act (III.B.C. of 1384) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The offence charged against him is that he used without a license certain premises in the town of Cuttack for the purpose of storing hides, such user being in contravention of the provisions of Section 261.3. Sections 261 and 273 are contained in Part VI of the Act and it is not disputed that that Part has been extended to the Cuttack Municipality by an order of the Local Government duly made under Section 221.4. Nor is it disputed that the storage of hides is an offensive trade or business to which the provisions of Section 261 are applicable.5. What is urged on the petitioner's behalf is that Section 261 only applies 'within such local limits as may be fixed by the Commissioners at a meeting,' and that the record does not prove that any limits were so fixed.6. The case f...
Surjug Saran Lal and ors. Vs. Dukhit Mahto and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.809
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiffs' case is that the tenants are Dukhit, Ram Autar, and Ramyad and that on a compromise arrived at in a former suit, they agreed to pay the somewhat considerable rent of Rs. 77 odd for 6 bighas and 24 seers a maund on the produce of the rest of the land. The suit has been dismissed and the plaintiffs appeal.2. The first point taken is that as the decree which embodied the compromise has not been set aside, it is still binding on the parties. We think that this contention must be upheld. It is not apparently disputed that the three defendants were parties to the former suit. It was found by the Court of first instance that Ram Autar entered into the compromise without the knowledge of the other two. But the Munsif has not considered the fact that they raised no objection to it. A party to a suit must be presumed to know what is the result of it, when it is not suggested that he was ignorant of its existence. Even if the actual co...
Lakshmi Bibi Kujrani Vs. Atal Bihary Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal534
Chitty and Teunon, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge confirming that of the Subordinate Judge of Manbhum, declining to set aside a sale. It appears that a mortgage was executed by the judgment-debtor on 1st January, 1907, in favour of the present decree-holder. On that mortgage, a preliminary decree was passed on 15th June, 1909, and the final decree for sale was passed on 26th November, 1910. In the interval between the two decrees the pro visions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (Beng. VI of 1908) were extended to the district of Manbhum, and from that time they govern the property, in question. The decree-holder asked for sale and the judgment-debtor objected. His objection was disposed of by the first Court on 15th June, 1911, and by the Appellate Court on 22nd December, 1911. It has been brought to our notice by the learned pleader for the respondent that the sale actually took place on the 22nd July, 1911, while the appeal in the lower Court was pending, ...
Upendra Nath Ghose Vs. Bhairab Chandra Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.471
1. The questions which arise in this second appeal are firstly, whether under the terms of a kabuliat executed by the defendant No. 1, Bhairab Chandra Sarcar, on the 7th April 1892, he is a non-occupancy riayat or an ijaradar. A second question was raised by the appellant that even if he were a non-occupancy raiyat, he could not be regarded as a person holding over, as he was never recognised as a tenant by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was the purchaser of the rights of one Kunja Behari Chowduri with whom the Government settled the mahals in which the disputed land is situated in the year 1896. His interest was sold for arrears of revenue, or, as it really was khas mahal rent, and was purchased by Joy Narain Chowduri in 1906, who in his turn sold his interest to the plaintiff in April 1908.2. We will deal with the second point first, because it appears to us perfectly clear that if the defendant No. 1 was a cultivating tenant on the land under a nine years' lease, he must be a non-occu...
Chaturbhuja Nanda Vs. Gopal Dolai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.448
1. The only question arising in this second appeal is whether the defendants could be ejected without notice. It has been found by the learned Sub-Judge that the term of the kabuliat, under which the defendants' father held the lands, expired some time ago. It did, as a matter of fact, expire in 1901. He then goes on to say: 'Defendants have, therefore, been holding over. They are, therefore, tenants of the lands from year to year under Section 116 of the Transfer or property Act, and are entitled to 15 days' notice before ejectment.' It may be that he was incorrect in holding that the Transfer of Property Act applied. If it did apply, there is no question that they would be entitled to notice. But assuming that the Bengal Tenancy Act applies, the question then arises, are they entitled to notice under that Act? It is true that a mere omission by a landlord to sue in ejectment immediately after the tenancy had expired would not be a ground for saying that the tenant was holding over an...
Sonaton Goswami and ors. Vs. Ganese Changa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.393
1. The suit in this case is one for khas possession of land on a declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto. The defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff and claims a right to the possession of the land in question as part of his jote land.2. The defendant's land is bounded on the north and south by the khas land of the plaintiff; in second appeal, no question arises as to the boundary of the land on the south, bat a question arises as to the northern boundary, The lower Appellate Court decided this question by starting from the north of the plaintiffs' khas land where there is a fixed boundary called Bandadih, and awarding to the plaintiff two khanis, equivalent to 2 bighas 2 1/2 cottas, on the south thereof. The case was remanded to the first Court in order that this measurement might be made.3. This order cannot stand. The amount of the two khanis awarded to the plaintiff was arrived at, as to one khani by reference to a former suit between the parties; as to the other khani by re...
Raja Sati Prasad Garga and anr. Vs. Manmatha Nath Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.442
1. This second appeal refers only to the order of the lower Appellate Court, refusing interest and costs upon a sum of Rs. 999 deposited by the appellants on the 14th April 1909. The plaint was originally filed on the 8th April in that year, but it was returned for amendment and was refiled on the 16th April 1909. In the meantime, as we have been, the defendants deposited the money in Court and stated that they had tendered it to the manager and it had been refused. The money was certainly not all that was due, and it was nothing like what was due; for it has been found in the suit that over Rs. 2,000 is due from the defendants to the plaintiffs. The deposit, therefore, was not a good deposit under Section 61 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the defendants, therefore, must fall back upon the tender to the manager. It has been held in Jagat Tarini Dasi v. Naba Gopal Chaki 34 C. 305 at p. 323; 5 C.L.J. 270 that if the tenant is able to prove that he has made a valid tender which has been i...
Sonaton Goswami and ors. Vs. Ganesh Changa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.93
1. The suit in this case is one for khas possession of land on a declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto. The defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff and claims a right to the possession of the land in question as part of his jote land.2. The defendant's land is bounded on the north and south by the khas land of the plaintiff; in second appeal, no question arises as to the boundary of the land on the south, bat a question arises as to the northern boundary, The lower Appellate Court decided this question by starting from the north of the plaintiffs' khas land where there is a fixed boundary called Bandadih, and awarding to the plaintiff two khanis, equivalent to 2 bighas 2 1/2 cottas, on the south thereof. The case was remanded to the first Court in order that this measurement might be made.3. This order cannot stand. The amount of the two khanis awarded to the plaintiff was arrived at, as to one khani by reference to a former suit between the parties; as to the other khani by re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »