Kolkata Court May 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.
Rajah Kalanand Singh and anr. Vs. Musammat Saira and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal17,25Ind.Cas.540
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent based on a kabuliai. The only question that arises is whether the defendant is bound to pay certain charges to the landlord. The Courts below have held that these charges are abwabs and have disallowed them. The plaintiffs appeal. The plaintiffs belong to the family of the Beneli Raj who were also plaintiffs in the case of Pudmanand Singh Bahadur v. Baij Nath Singh 15 C. 828 and the charges are the same as were claimed in that case. The present case is based on a kabuliat of 1673 while the case cited was based on one of 1869. The learned Judges in that case held that these charges were not abwabs and that they were included in the rent. This case, however, was considered in the case of Radha Prosad Singh v. Bal Kowar Koeri 17 C. 726 (F.B.). It must be conceded that the charges in that case were very different from the charges in this case. But it seems to me perfectly clear that the correctness of the decision in Pudmanand Singh Bahadur v. B...
Deno Nath Ghosh and anr. Vs. Hrishikesh Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal861,24Ind.Cas.670
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for a declaration that an alienation of part of the estate of their maternal uncle by their maternal aunt is without legal necessity and will not bind them when the estate falls into their hands as reversionary heirs. Iswar Chandra Pal, the admitted owner of the property, died in 1896 and left a childless widow, Telumoni who is the second defendant in this litigation. Tie reversionary heirs of Iswar Chandra Pal are the present plaintiffs who are the sons of his sister. In 1908, the widow made a pilgrimage to Gaya to perform the sradh ceremony of her husband, and on return home gave a feast to Brahmins. For this purpose, she had to raise money, as her husband had left only 29 bighas of rent-paying land, the income of which was just sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, to carry on the worship of a family-idol and to pay the dues of the superior landlord. On the 2nd April 1909 she sold 9 bighas of land to her brother's son, the fir...
Hulada Prasad Deghoria Vs. Kalidas Naik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal813,24Ind.Cas.899
1. This is , an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property on declaration of title. The Courts below have con-currently found in favour of the plaintiffs, and have given thorn a decree on declaration that their title has not been affected by the sale in execution of a rent decree in a fraudulent suit for recovery of alleged arrears of rent. On the present appeal, one substantial question of law has been argued touching the Validity of the title of the plaintiffs, which is based ultimately on two permanent leases granted by a shebait in respect of the properties of a religious endowment., The facts, antecedent to this litigation, though of complex character, may be briefly narrated, in so far as such recital is necessary for the appreciation and determination of the question of law raised before us.2. The disputed properties lie within the zamindary of the Maharaja of Pachete. In the early years of the 19th century the then Maharaja made tw...
Adhar Chandra Gope Vs. PulIn Chandra Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal237,30Ind.Cas.684
Woodroffe, J.1. The first question which we have to decide in this case is whether or not there was an appeal from the Munsif to the District Judge. The latter has held that there is not.2. We cannot go into the merits of this case as all the facts are not before us. Therefore, I limit my observations to the question whether the applicant was entitled to be heard before the District Judge.3. I think he has made out his right of appeal to the District Judge, because although Section 104 Clause (h), excepts from appeal an order directing the arrest of a person in execution of a decree, we must also look at the other sections of the Code. Under Section 42, the Court executing a decree sent to it has the same power in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself, and the order in executing such decree is subject to the same rules in respect of appeal as if the decree had been passed by itself. In the present case, the decree of the Small Cause Court was sent for execution to th...
Ram Lal Pahari Vs. Babulal Barik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.555
1. This case stands thus. In 1901 one Narayan Panday obtained a money-decree. He died in the year 1907 and in the same year two of his sons who happened to be minors applied for execution of the decree. After various proceedings which are not material, the application for execution was struck off and execution was never granted by the* Court. After this had happened, the present appellant brought a suit in May 1909 for declaration against the sons of Narayan Panday that the decree obtained by the latter was obtained on his behalf, that is to say, that Narayan Panday was his benamdar in the matter. This was decreed on compromise in the same year and the terms agreed upon were that Narayan Panday was the benamdar and that the appellant should have the power to execute the decree. On the 1st October 1910, an application was made for execution but was refused on the ground that it was time-barred. To this it is argued in appeal that the application by the sons of Narayan Panday dated the 7...
Emperor Vs. Jogendra Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal789,(1915)ILR42Cal240,24Ind.Cas.571
Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Darbhanga under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the prosecution of the petitioner before him has been directed under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code with reference to a deposition given by that witness in a case against one Bank a Singh. The Sessions Judge has recommended that the order directing the petitioner's prosecution should be set aside on the ground that, in respect of that deposition, the provision of Section 360 Sub-section (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been complied with. The explanations submitted by the trying Magistrate, his officer, and the District Magistrate show that what happened was that, after the deposition had been recorded, the record was handed over to the petitioner. He thon proceeded to read it over himself. We are of opinion that that is not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 360 Sub-section (1) of the Criminal Pro...
Jaydhari Dasya and ors. Vs. Rasik Lal Sikdak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal854(1),24Ind.Cas.694
1. This is an appeal against an order rejecting an application for the revival of an application for the setting aside of a sale in execution of a decree. The application was headed as one under Order XLVII, Rule 1. and Order IX, Rule 9, and seems to have been filed in the office of the Court below. The officer of the Court reported that this was an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1, and the copy of the judgment complained against was not filed. On that report the learned Subordinate Judge wrote, 'No sufficient ground to admit the application : rejected.' The officer of the Court had no right to decide whether the petition was one under Order XLVII or Order IX and his report must mean that as the petition was headed as one under Order XLVII it must as such be accompanied with a copy of the judgment. If the learned Judge thought that a copy of the judgment was necessary he should have either returned the petition or asked the petitioners to file the required copy. Not only did he no...
Forbes Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal621,(1915)ILR42Cal151
Jenkins, C.J.1. Do you wish to say anything on Section 39?.2. Yes. The Collector has jurisdiction to assess on persons chargeable. The only remedy against his action is appeal. If he assesses anything but income, he acts beyond his jurisdiction: see Section 14. If he assesses the person who derives income, he acts properly. If he says I assess A, though I believe B is Chargeable, it is not: Attorney-General v. London County Council ([1907] A. C. 131, 135.), per Lord Macnaghten.Jenkins, C.J.3. See Secretary of State for India v. Fahamidannissa Begum (1889) I. L. R. 17 Calc 590.4. Section 39 is a bar to a suit.N. Chatterjea, J.5. What do you say to Kamesh-war Pershad v. The Chairman of the Bhabua Municipality (1900) 1. L. R. 27 Calc. 849?6. There it was clearly without jurisdiction. The words are, moreover, different between the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Bengal Municipal Act.7. The Collector shall determine who is chargeable The civil courts have no jurisdiction to determi...
Manipur Dey Vs. Bidhu Bhushan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal168,(1915)ILR42Cal158
Sharfuddin, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Dacca of show cause why the orders passed under Sections 133 and 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code, dated the 28th February 1914, should not be set aside on the ground that having regard to the bond fide question of title raised, and in the absence of any finding that the objection raised was not bond fide, the order is without jurisdiction. It appears from the order of the Deputy Magistrate concerned that Manipur Dey, the petitioner before us, on receipt of a notice under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, appeared and alleged that the pathway in question was not a public pathway. The following are the findings of the trying Magistrate with regard to the objection thus raised. 'It is contended on behalf of Manipur Dey that the way cannot be called public, if a few neighbours and acquaintances have acquired mere permissive right thereto...It is idle in the present case to urge that the way is Manipuri's p...
Debakar Singh Vs. Radhagobindo Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal59,24Ind.Cas.527
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 26th July 1912, allowing an appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover certain lands which he had formerly been in possession of as Ghatwal, but from which it is alleged that he had been dismissed by an order of the District Magistrate. The case in both the lower Courts proceeded solely on the question whether the plaintiff had or had not been dismissed by the District Magistrate and whether he was entitled to ask the Court to review the order of dismissal made by the District Magistrate. That was the only point raised in the two lower Courts and that is the only point we have got to decide here. This Ghatwali is in Bankura. The nature of the Ghatwali in that district has been laid down in the Privy Council judgment in the case of Nilmoni Singh Deo v. Bakranath Singh 9 C. 187 (P.C.) : 9 I.A. 104 : 5 Shome L.R. 68 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »