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.
In Re: J.M. Lucas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal109,28Ind.Cas.469
Chitty, J.1. This is an application presented under Section 36(5) of the Preside any Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, by the Official Assignee, praying that Mrs. Amy Zemin, who was examined under that section in the matter of C.J. and J.M. Lucas, insolvents, should be ordered to deliver over to the Official Assignee certain immoveable property situate in Elliott Road, Calcutta, as being the property of the insolvent J.M. Lucas and now in her possession.2. The insolvents were so adjudged on their own petition on February 21st, 1912. Admittedly the property in question was conveyed to the witness, who is the mother-in-law of J.M. Lucas, by deed dated September 26th, 1911, loss than live month' before the adjudication. The conveyance purports to have been made (subject to a mortgage and further charge of the Phoenix Assurance Co., Ld.), for a consideration of Rs. 50,000 paid by Mrs. Zemin to J.M. Lucas. The story of the witness, as disclosed on her examination, wan that Rs. 130,000 was actuall...
Chowdhry Babu Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Shaikh Nabi Bukhsh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.104
Coxe, J.1. This was a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to' kill bullocks and cows, and for a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with that right. The suit has been decreed against the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant appeals.2. Several points have been taken on behalf of the appellant, but they have all been so exhaustively discussed in the excellent judgment of the learned District Judge that it is unnecessary to deal with them at great length.3. The first point taken is that the plaint discloses no cause of action. It appears to me, reading the plaint as a whole, as I am bound to read it, that the plaint certainly discloses a cause of action. The plaintiff states in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the plaint that defendant No. I sent a telegram to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Sitamarhi and that the Sub-Divisional Officer issued a notice under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, forbidding the plaintiff to kill cattle....
intu Meah Mistry Vs. Darbuksh Bhuiyan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal67
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chitta-gong rejecting the appellant's application to set aside an ex parte decree of the 28th July 1909.2. It appears that this litigation began in 1907 and that a decree was passed on the 14th March 1908 by the Munsif in favour of 5 persons among whom the appellant was the defendant No. 2. But upon appeal the learned Subordinate Judge in. the Court below reversed the Munsif's decision and found against the five defendants. The defendant No. 1, who is proved to be joint with the defendant No. 2, preferred an appeal to the High Court and that appeal was summarily dismissed. The defendant No. 2, the present appellant, applied to the learned Subordinate Judge during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court to have his appeal re-heard by the Subordinate Judge.3. The Subordinate Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. On appeal to this Court a Divisional Bench of this Co...
Monijan Bibi Vs. District Judge Birbhum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal1,(1915)ILR42Cal351
Mookerjee and Beachroft, JJ.1. We are invited to met aside, in the exercise of our appellate or of our revisional jurisdiction, an order, which purports to have been made by the District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act, for the marriage of a Mahomedan girl, in respect of whose person and property guardians had been previously appointed by him. On the 12th February 1910, the District Judge appointed the mother of the infant as guardian of her person and the Nazir of the Court as the guardian of her properties. The order however, was not communicated to the Nazir, and he does not appear to have had any hand in the management of the estate, till quite recently, when the fact was discovered chat the Nazir had never been apprised of his appointment. The proceeding now before us was initiated on the 22nd May 1912, when an application was made to the Court by the mother and by another person who claimed to be the half-brother of the father of the infant, for directions as to a suitabl...
Syed ManiruddIn Vs. Jnanendra Nath Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal401,31Ind.Cas.707
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree made by a Small Cause Court Judge in a suit for damages for use and occupation of a soorkey mill. The second defendant, Gopal Chandra Ghosh, was the owner of the mill. On the 5th February 1910 he entered into a partnership agreement with two other persons in respect of the mill business. It is not necessary for our present purpose to set out at length the terms of this agreement. It is sufficient to state that the mill was to be used by the firm thus constituted; cash was to be supplied by one of the partners and the profits were to be distributed in certain proportions. On the 7th June 1912, a suit was instituted for dissolution of the partnership, for accounts and for incidental reliefs. During the pendency of this litigation, on the 17th Januaty 1913 the present plaintiff purchased the right, title and interest of Gopal Chandra Ghosh in the mill in question. He subsequently instituted this suit against the members of the partnersh...
Monijan Bibi and anr. Vs. District Judge
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.229
1. We are invited to set aside, in the exercise of our appellate or of our revisional jurisdiction, an order which purports to have been made by the District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act for the marriage of a Muhammadan girl, in respect of whose person and property guardians had been previously appointed by him. On the 12th February 1910 the District Judge appointed the mother of the infant as guardian, of her person and the Nazir of the Court as the guardian of her properties. The order, however, was not communicated to the Nazir, and he does not appear to have had any hand in the management of the estate, till quite recently, when the fact was discovered that the Nazir had never been apprised of his appointment. The proceeding now before us was initiated on the 22nd May 1912, when an application was made to the Court, by the mother and by another person who claimed to be the half-brother of the father of the infant, for directions as to a suitable marriage of the girl. Obj...
Lakhan Jena and ors. Vs. Arjun Naik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal202,24Ind.Cas.387
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of money due on a contract. The circumstances under which the Courts below have concurrently sustained the claim of the plaintiff may be briefly recited. In 1909, at a public auction held at the instance of Government, the plaintiff purchased for a sum of Rs. 445 the roadside lands on the bank of the river Bhargavi situated on the ninth mile of the Jagannath road, together with what is called the dandidari right, for the year 1909-1910. The term dandidar literally means a measurer and is applied to signify a broker who negotiates the sale of paddy and other produce in a market place and receives as remuneration for his services a commission from the seller and the buyer who may choose to employ him. The plaintiff, as the highest bidder, was accepted as purchaser of the lands and of the dandidari right for the period mentioned : and it is clear from the lease granted to him by Government on the 6th May 1909 that he became ent...
intu Miah Mistry Vs. Darbuksh Bhuiyan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal845,25Ind.Cas.380
1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong rejecting the appellant's application to set aside an ex parte decree of the 28th July 1909.2. It appears that this litigation began in 1907 and that decree was passed on the 14th March 1908 by the Munsif in favour of five persons, among whom the appellant was the defendant No. 2. But upon appeal the learned Subordinate Judge in the Court below reversed the Munsif's decision and found against the defendants. The defendant No. 1, who is proved to be joint with the defendant No. 2, preferred an appeal to the High Court and that appeal was summarily dismissed. The defendant No. 2, the present appellant, applied to the learned Subordinate Judge during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court to have his appeal re-heard by the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. On appeal to this Court a Divisional Bench of this Court held that he had jurisdictio...
Promode Ranjan Ghosh Alias Manoo Ghosh Vs. Abijan Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal110,25Ind.Cas.373
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for arrears of rent. The rent is claimed in respect of a nimhowla tenure, which lay originally within the District of Backerganj but is now within the' District of Khulna and which, it is alleged, is held by the defendants under the plaintiff. The defendants resist the claim substantially on the ground that they have transferred the tenure by conveyances and are no longer liable for the rent. The Court of first instance held that the defendants had failed to establish that the tenure was transferable and were consequently responsible for the rent. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has taken a contrary view and has come to the conclusion that nimhowla tenures in Backerganj are transferable. In our opinion the view taken by the Subordinate Judge is correct.2. The Subordinate Judge has, in support of this view, referred to the cases of Huromohun Mookerjee v. Ranee Lahin Monee Dasee 1 W.R. 5 at p. 6 and Juggut Chunder Roy v. Ramnarain Bhuttacha...
Haji Mahomed Mozaffer Ali Bhuyan Vs. Asraf Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal823,25Ind.Cas.93
1. We are of opinion that the judgment of the learned Judge in the Court below must be affirmed although one or two errors into which he has fallen have been pointed out to us. He was not right in using the evidence of the two witnesses who told him that the whole transaction was a mortgage by conditional sale, and he was not right in his interpretation of the Transfer of Property Act by reference to Regulation XVII of 1808. But as regards the first point the circumstances which have always been held to be good evidence of the intention of the parties are sufficiently clearly set out to enable us to deal fully with the matter; and as regards the second objection the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Balhishen Das v. W. F. Legge 22 A. 149 (P.C.) : 4 C.W.N. 153 : 27 I.A. 58 : 2 Bom. L.R. 523 : 7 Sar. P.C.J. 601 have gone very near to doing what the learned Judge has done in this case; and in discussing the intention of the Legislature as indicated in Regulation XVII ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »