Kolkata Court April 1914 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.
Rajani Nath Rakshit Vs. Kusum Kaminimajumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal778,24Ind.Cas.64
Woodroffe, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed upon an application to set aside a sale.Pour properties were put up for sale, which are mentioned in the judgment of the District Judge. The learned District Judge set aside the sale as regards all these four properties. Now, as regards properties Nos. 1 and 4, there is no appeal before us and, therefore, the order of the District Judge stands.2. As regards property No. 2, it is 'admitted that there were irregularities, but the contention has been that there is no evidence which shows that substantial injury, which the Judge has found to exist in this case, was caused by the irregularities referred to in the judgment. I think that the facts to which the learned Judge refers in his judgment supports the conclusion at which he has arrived as regards this property and, therefore, his order setting aside the sale as regards property No. 2 stands.3. The main question in this appeal is as regards property No. 3. No doubt, the irregula...
Bisnab Charan De and anr. Vs. Sarat Chandra Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1914
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.487
1. The entire ground in this case is covered by the authority of Jarip Khan v. Durfa Bewa 15 Ind. Cas. 476 : 16 C.L.J. 14 : 17 C.W.N. 59. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Akram Ali Vs. Anwar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal769,24Ind.Cas.677
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent brought by the plaintiffs on the basis of a kabuliat executed by the defendant. The kabuliat is in respect of two kanis and four gundas of land, out of lands comprised in three holdings of which, the particulars are given in the kbuliat By this kabuliat the defendant agrees to deliver to the plaintiffs at their house a certain quantity of paddy per annum for the use of this land, and in case he does not do, so the landlord would be entitled to recover the money-value of the paddy which was settled by the terms of the kabuliat. The defendant haying failed to deliver the paddy this suit was brought for recovery of the money-value of the produce rent agreed upon in the kabuliat.2. One of the pleas taken by the defendant was that according to Section 48 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, he was not liable to pay-more than 25 percent in excess of the rent payable by the plaintiffs, who are raiyats, to their landlords. The first Court gave effect to this ...
Abhaybswari Debi Vs. Kishori Mohan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal19
Coxe, J.1. This proceeding arises out of a complaint, purporting to be made on the part of Rani Abhayeswari Debi against the petitioners, accusing them of committing defamation. The complaint is not signed by the Rani, but by one Bhuban Mohan Chatterjee on behalf of the Rani. We are informed that there is no power of attorney on the record, and that there is no power of attorney authorizing the presentation of this specific complaint, although there is a general power of attorney authorizing the presentation of criminal complaints. The document was presented to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, who issued process against the accused; and thereafter the case was transferred. The Magistrate, to whom it has ultimately come, has referred for our decision the following point-'Whether the Rani can institute the case of defamation through her agent, Bhuban Mohan Chatterjee, and whether by doing so the requirements of Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been met with.'2. If the Rani...
Brij Nandan Singh Vs. Kailash Tewary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal674,24Ind.Cas.17
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are shortly these The mother of the plaintiffs purchased the disputed property in execution of a mortgage-decree in the name of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 who himself had a larger share in the purchase applied for the registration -of- his name, but his application was disallowed on the 17th of February 1903. Defendant No. 1 then brought a regular suit for declaration of title, with an alternative prayer for possession if ho was hold to be out of possession. He did not proceed with this suit and on the 27th of November 1907 the order of the Court was, the plaintiff applies to say he would not proceed with the suit : the defendants' Pleader is without instructions, ordered suit be dismissed, each party to bear its own costs'.2. It is contended by the learned Vakil for the appellant that this order operates as res judicata and he relies upon the cases of Gopal Lal v. Bernard Prasad Chowdhry 31 C. 428., Mahomed Ibrahim Hossain...
Jugol Kishore Marwari and anr. Vs. Chintamoni Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal760,24Ind.Cas.80
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hughly, dated the 8th January 1913. The sole question raised by the appellants in this case is whether the application for execution of a certain decree is barred by limitation. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has held that it is barred and the present appeal has been preferred by the decree-holders against that order.2. The decree-holders obtained the decree as long ago as the 14th April 1903 in the Court of the Munsif of Govindpur in the District of Manbhum for Rs. 500. The first application for execution was made as long ago as the 23rd July 1903. That application was dismissed for default on the 5th September 1903.3. The next application for execution was dated the 9th July 1906. Notice of that application was ordered to be issued on the 21st July 1906 : and, according to the appellants, the notice was actually served on the 27th July 1906, one of the decree-holders identifying the ...
Annapurna Dasee Vs. Nalini Mohan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal369(2),(1915)ILR42Cal10
Woodroffe, J.1. This appeal arises in connection with an application which has been made for a succession certificate.2. The deceased Sanatan Das died Leaving Government promissory notes and Bank of Bengal shares on which Rs. 4,000 odd were due for interest at the time of his death, and since his death over Rs. 75,000 as farther interest have fallen due. The application is by his widow for a certificate which will enable her to realise interest and dividends due up to the date of her husband's death but' not the interest and dividends falling due after his death, or the principal. The object of the application apparently is that the applicant may thereby be exempted from finding a large security which she would have to find if a certificate were applied for in order to recover the principal, interest and dividends accruing both before and after the death of her husband.3. The learned Judge was of opinion that the certificate, as asked for could not be granted. He says: 'The law intends...
Ganga Dhar Muradi and anr. Vs. Banabashi Padihari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal722,24Ind.Cas.208
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the District Judge of Cuttack in a suit brought to recover possession of certain properties.2. The Judge of the first Court granted the plaintiff a decree for possession against defendant No. 6 and directed payment of salami by defendants Nos. 1 to 5. The plaintiff appealed with the result that the Appellate Court so far from modifying the decree of the first Court in his favour, deprived him of what had been awarded to him though no cross-appeal or cross-objection had been filed by any of the defendants. The result then is that the appellant by reason of his appeal is in a much worse position than he was before he preferred his appeal.3. It is argued that the decree of the lower Appellate Court is justified by Rule 33 of Order XLI. There is no doubt that the words of that rule are widely expressed, but they must be applied with discretion.4. In this case the proper order for the lower Appellate Court to have made on its findings would ha...
Satkari Madal Vs. Tirtha NaraIn Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.62
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order by which the Court below has disallowed a claim under Rule 61 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case for the petitioner is that at the time the disputed properties were attached by the opposite party as the properties of his judgment-debtor, the petitioner was in possession thereof as shebait of the Idol Katakeswar Sheva The Court below has held that the claim must be disallowed as the petitioner had failed to prove that he had interest in the disputed property as shebait, and in this view the Court has declined to enter into the question of possession of the judgment-debtor at the date of attachment. In our opinion the Court below has taken an erroneous view of the scope of Rule 5.9. That rule provides that the claimant must adduce evidence to show that at the date of attachment he had some interest in of was possessed of the property attached. This does not mean that if the claimant establishes that he has some inter...
Surendra Nath Basu and ors. Vs. Towej Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal53,24Ind.Cas.86
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside the decree of dismissal in a suit for damages for breach of contract. The case for the plaintiff is that on the 23rd May 1912 they sold a calf to the defendant which was worth Rs. 30 for the sum of Rs. 14 on a two-fold condition, namely, first, that the defendant would not sell the calf to any one, and that if he desired to do so, the plaintiffs would have a right of preemption : secondly, that the defendant would not castrate the calf, and if he did so, the plaintiffs would be entitled to Rs. 50 as damages and also to the expenses of a purificatory ceremony which they might have to perform for the purposes of atonement. The defendant, it has been found, has castrated the animal, and the plaintiff seeks in this suit, which he instituted on the 26th September 1913, to recover Rs. 60 as damages from him for breach of' contract, namely, Rs. 50 as mentioned in the written agreement and Rs. 10 as the expenses of a purificatory ceremony which they ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »