Kolkata Court February 1913 Judgments
Sheikh Abdul Huq and ors. Vs. Sheikh Subajan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.855
Richard Harington, J.1. I have read the judgment about to be delivered by my learned brother and I agree in it.Herbert Carnduff, J.2. In this case, the plaintiffs sued for the recovery of possession of some 4 bighas of land, which they declared had gradually reformed in the derelict beds of the Baghmati in contiguity to their holding on the bank of that river. Their suit has been decreed, both the Courts below finding that they were entitled to the land as a gradual accretion by virtue of the provisions of Section 4, Sub-section (1) of the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation 1825 (XI of 1825). The defendants have now appealed to this Court.3. For the appellants, Dr. Ghosh has contended, in the first place, that the plaintiff's case was not one of gradual accretion, but rather a case of reformation in situ to which, as ruled by the Judicial Committee in Lopez v. Muddun Mohun Thakoor 13 M.I.A. 467 : 14 W.R. (P.C.) 11; 5 B.L.R. 521 and Ritraj Kunwar v. Sarfaraz Kunwar 32 I.A. 165; 27 ...
Tag this Judgment!Semaki Chutiani and anr. Vs. Hemkanta Sarma Mauzadar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.830
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nowgong in Assam upholding the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif in a case for malicious prosecution in which the plaintiff, mouzadar, school master, Ganghura and Mandol, was accused, on facts which are now practically admitted of kidnapping a child and breaking into a private dwelling house. The Court of a Magistrate in Assam found this mouzadar guilty upon both these charges. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge characterized the Magistrate's judgment as one-sided and prejudiced and said that unnecessary heat had been displayed about a very simple family dispute. Now the facts being what they are, it appears to us impossible that any Court could have held that there was reasonable and probable cause for making these two grave charges against the mouzadar and that the Court was bound to hold on the admitted facts that there was malice at law.2. It appears that the boy who was 9 years of age ...
Tag this Judgment!Keshab Lal Shaha Vs. Hossein-ud-dIn Munshi an ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.847
1. We think that both the lower Courts are wrong in this case for the simple reason that they have found that the defendant did not carry out the agreement he made with his creditor for defraying the mortgage-debt. Such an agreement could not be enforced as a contract before it was completed by payment of all the instalments, for the plaintiff cannot exercise the option under Section 63 of the Contract Act of dispensing with or remitting in part the performance of the promise made to him, nor can he accept instead of it the satisfaction which he thought fit to agree to until that satisfaction has been completely paid to him. It was originally sought to be argued that the plaintiff could not accept by anticipation any satisfaction which he thought fit. We are unable to agree with this contention; but we certainly cannot deny the plaintiff's right to sue on his contract of mortgage which could not be varied by the agreement he made to take part satisfaction; for until satisfaction was ma...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Kumar Vs. Maharajadhiraj Bejoy Chand Mahatap Bahadur and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.859
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that a rent decree passed in suit No. 7 of 1896 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, and the proceedings in execution thereof were fraudulent, collusive and inoperative against him, and for recovery of Rs. 2,076-7-6 which the defendant had realized from him, by arresting him in execution of the said decree.2. The plaintiff alleged that the patni taluk, in respect of which the rent decree was passed, belonged exclusively to one Lakshi Narain, and he, the plaintiff, had no interest therein, that he was a minor at the time the said decree was passed, but was described in the suit as if he was of age, that no summons had been served upon him and an ex parte decree was passed against him, that the said Lakshi Narain put in vakalatnamahs and applications in the execution proceedings purporting to have been signed by him, that in execution of the decree, after the patni taluk had been sold and some portion of the decretal amou...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Prasad Singh Vs. Shyam Lal Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal615
Harington, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Patna rejecting the plaint on the ground that insufficient court-fee was paid. And the question which comes up now is whether the Judge was right in taking that course. The suit was one which asked that a decree amounting to Rs. 2,794-14-3 should be declared forged, fraudulent, illusory, collusive, inoperative and unfit for execution. It also asks that the family property valued at Rs. 7,000 should be declared to be not liable to be sold in execution of this decree. There was also an alternative prayer, if the whole of the property could not be released, the plaintiff's share might be released. The plaintiff tendered ten times the Government revenue payable on the land worth Rs. 7,000, basing his claim to do that on the provisions of Section 7, Sub-section v of the Court-fees Act. But that Sub-section provides for cases where a suit is brought for possession of land. The present suit is not one brought f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Provas Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal588
Jenkins, C.J.1. I confess I do not understand that decision.2. The requirements of Section 46 are substantially fulfilled by the letter to the Secretary, which is set out in the petition. It is true there is no further affidavit. The local Government had no power to issue the notification in the Calcutta Gazette, and, it is submitted, if the examiners observe or carry out an illegal order, relief can be obtained against them. Under Rule 15 the whole body of examiners must take into consideration the case of each applicant on each occasion: they cannot consider themselves bound by the notification.3. My Chakravarti, in reply. It is unnecessary for me to discuss whether the notification of the Government is legal or binding or not, or whether or not it should affect the examiners of subsequent years. The present application should fail, and the appeal be allowed.Jenkins, C.J.4. This appeal arises out of an application under Chapter VIII of the Specific Relief Act. Section 45 of that Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Examiners of the Pleader-ship and Moktearship Examinations Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.527
1. This appeal arises out of an application under Chapter VIII of the Specific Relief Act. Section 45 of that Act enables this Court to order public servants and others to do certain specific acts and Section 46 indicates how the application is to be made and the procedure thereon. The present applicant is one who was examined last year for the Pleadership Examination and in connection with that examination, he was found to have been guilty of very grave misconduct--the misconduct was as grave as no one in his position should be capable of. There is no dispute as to that. He now seeks to be admitted to the same examination and has observed the prescribed conditions in so far as he has obtained a certificate from a High Court Pleader as to the fitness of his moral character and deposited with the District Judge of Alipore the requisite fees and it is on matters set out in some detail in his petition that he has succeeded in obtaining from Mr. Justice Imam an order in these terms: That t...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prosad Pathak Vs. Lachman Bania
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal584
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. This Rule was issued upon four grounds: first, that the Small Cause Court had no power to grant a subsequent sanction, one having already been granted on the 27th July, 1912, which sanction had not been cancelled by a-higher Court; secondly, that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction in granting a second sanction without giving any notice to the petitioner; thirdly, that the Small Cause Court Judge acted without jurisdiction in granting a second sanction; inasmuch as a prosecution was started and was pending in the Police Court upon the first sanction; and, fourthly, that the second sanction was illegal, inasmuch as it extends the period of limitation, which is to be calculated from the original date of sanction.2. As regards the first three grounds, it is only necessary to point out that there was no second sanction, and all the rulings which have been cited to us by the learned Counsel, of which we need only refer to that in the case of Darbari Mandar ...
Tag this Judgment!AzimooddIn Vs. Mathura Mohan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal816,18Ind.Cas.712
1. This is a second appeal in three analogous rent suits, in which two points are raised before us. The first arises thus. One Shukur Mamad was the owner of a patni which the plaintiffs respondents purchased at an execution sale in execution of a decree for arrears of the rent thereof. He sold the patni to Durga Charan Roy, who purchased on behalf of himself and his six brothers of whom one was Kali Kishore Roy, who parted with all his interest in the patni except five gandas. Subsequently, the rent of the patni fell into arrear and the landlords brought four suits in respect of it against Rahim Bakhsh the son of Shukur Mamad, who had no interest in the patni, and Kali Kishore. They obtained decrees in execution of one of which a sale of the patni took place at which the plaintiff became the purchaser.2. Neither Durga Charan Roy nor any of his brothers ever took any steps to have the alienation to them registered in the landlord's sherista but the sales were registered under Section 12...
Tag this Judgment!Doman Lal and ors. Vs. Babu Prokash Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.866
Richard Harington, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant No. 1 who objects to the preliminary decree made in favour of the plaintiff in a partition suit. Three points have been taken by the learned Vakil who appears for the appellant. The first is that the action is not maintainable because, on the face of the plaint, the plaintiff is asking for a partial partition, that is to say, a partition of only a portion of the joint property and professes to intend to bring another suit for the partition of the rest. The second point taken is that the Court below had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter because some of the lands sought to be partitioned lay within the territorial jurisdiction of another Court and the third point taken is that the order for partition contravenes Section 54, Civil Procedure Code, and is, therefore, bad.2. With regard to the first point, the authorities are in favour of the appellant. The question came up for decision in the case of Hari Das Sanyal ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »