Kolkata Court June 1914 Judgments
Dhakeshwar Prosad NaraIn Singh Alias Harihar Prosad NaraIn Singh Vs. I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal759(2),30Ind.Cas.862a
1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff-appellant is the landlord, and realises produce rents from about 130 raiyats. In the Record of Rights of the village, it was recorded that half the produce of the land is paid as rent to the landlord. The further incidents of the system of produce-rent were recorded in full in a separate khatian, called the furd rewaz bhowli, to which reference was made in the khatian of each tenant. The plaintiff thereupon instituted the suit against all the tenants in a body upon one plaint with a Court-fee of Rs. 10 only, for a declaration that the rates of rent payable by the tenants varied according to the occupation and caste to which they belonged (the rates varying from 20 seers to 22 1/2 seers in a maund). The tenants entered into compromise with the plaintiff and the Assistant Settlement Officer made a decree according to the compromise. The matter came up before the Settlement Officer, who by his o...
Tag this Judgment!Meghraj Vs. Bidyabati Koer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal610(1),28Ind.Cas.567
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against an order of this Court by which a decree of dismissal of a suit for default has been set aside and a trial of the case on the merits directed.2. The question before us is whether this order is a final order within the meaning of Section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On behalf of the respondents it has been contended that it is not a final order and reliance has been placed on the case of Krishna Chandra Ghosh v. Maharaja Ram Narain Singh Bahadur 21 Ind. Cas. 430 : 18 C.L.J. 124. That case is clearly distinguishable. There the original Court had dismissed the suit as premature because brought during the pendency of settlement proceedings; the decree of that Court, however, did not finally terminate the controversy between the parties, but left it open to the plaintiff to on force his rights, if any, in a, fresh suit. This Court on appeal took a different view and directed the suit to be evived and to b...
Tag this Judgment!The Garden Reach Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. the Secre ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal407,28Ind.Cas.865
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application by the appellants for. the admission of certain additional evidence in an appeal we are about to hear.2. The appeal itself is with reference to the amount to be paid by the Government as compensation for the property of the appellants which has been compulsorily acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The fresh evidence that the appellants wish to adduce consists of certain documents leading up to and resulting in a compromise of another case with reference to the acquisition of the premises of the British India Steam Navigation Co., which adjoin the premises of the appellants.3. The compromise with the British India Steam Navigation Co. had not been arrived at when the lower Court gave judgment, nor when the appeal was filed in this Court. The present application is opposed by the Secretary of State for India in Council, the respondent to the present appeal.4. Now the powers of sin Appellate Court in India to admit further evide...
Tag this Judgment!Bansiram Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1914
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.284
1. The plaintiff instituted the suit, which has culminated in this appeal, for cancellation of a conveyance executed by her in favour of the defendant on the 20th April 1900, for recovery of possession of the property covered thereby, and for incidental reliefs. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge on the 30th November 1910. The present appeal was lodged in this Court by the defendant on the 7th March 1911. The plaintiff, who was the sole respondent, died on the 10th April 1911. As the property in suit originally belonged to the husband of the plaintiff, an application was made by the appellant to bring on the record her daughter, who, upon her death, had succeeded to the estate as the reversionary heir. The daughter, who was an infant, was brought on the record, but died before a guardian ad litem could be appointed. An application was then made to bring on the record one Mukund Lal, who claimed to be an agnate of the husband of the original plaintiff, and the order for subst...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hakim Chowdhury Vs. Hem Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal666,(1915)ILR42Cal433
Holmwood, J.1. But the Court allowed the application.2. It is open to me to object to it now under Order XLVII, Rule 7. (b) and (c) of the Code. Though no appeal lies from an order of the High Court, still I can take this objection in this appeal, which is an appeal from, the final decree in the suit. The order granting the review is to this effect: 'Having regard to the fact that an analogous appeal has been admitted by two learned Judges, who, we are informed, were told that we had summarily rejected the appeal, we think this latter also should be admitted.' This application was not supported by any affidavit explaining the delay of one month since the other appeal was admitted. I ought to mention that there was a note at the end of the application as follows: 'Petitioner prays for extension of time 'under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act.'3. As regards S. A. No. 2024, I submit that no appeal was filed on 10th April 1912, only a memorandum of appeal without the necessary copie...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Mohan Misser Vs. Surendra Narayan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal178,(1915)ILR42Cal550
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Purneah dated the 18th of March 1912. The suit was instituted to recover from the defendants Rs. 1,91,932-8-6, as damages for malicious prosecution Of a civil suit brought against the plaintiffs. On the 1st of December 1896, the oxecutor of the father of the defendant No. 1 instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of: Purneah against the present plaintiffs for the purpose of obtaining an injunction restraining the present plaintiffs from erecting an indigo factory on the land let for agricultural purposes and on the same date an application was made ex parte to the Subordinate Judge for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants, till the trial of the suit, from proceeding with the erection of the buildings. The learned Subordinate Judge on that application granted the interlocutory injunction prayed for. An appeal was preferred against that order to th...
Tag this Judgment!Gurbuksh Proshad Tewari Vs. Kali Prosad NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1914
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.167
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of the second Court at Saran.2. The suit was brought for declaration of title to, and possession of, certain lands.3. It appears that many years ago the Mahal Guthui was divided into three separate estates, but some lands remained joint between the three separate estates. The tauzi numbers of the three estates are now 1925, 1926 and 1927.4. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners of tauzi No. 1926 and of 8 annas in tauzi No. 1925. The defendant No. 1 is the owner of a 5-annas 4 pies share out of 8 annas of tauzi No. 1925 and the defendants Nos. 2--5 are the owners of the remaining share in the 8 annas of tauzi No. 1925. The other defendants are the owners of tauzi No. 1927.5. In January 1902 the defendant No. 1 applied under the provisions of the Estates Partition Act, 1897 (Act V of, 1897 B. C), for partition of his share in tauzi No. 1925. On the 30th of September 1902, the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Sadananda Mandal Vs. Krishna Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal664,(1915)ILR42Cal381
Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.1. This Rule, issued at the instance of the first party to proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, called upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the final order made in these proceedings should not be set aside on two grounds, namely, first, that the evidence had not been recorded in the manner provided by Section 336 of the Criminal Procedure Code; and, secondly, oil the ground that the Magistrate did not receive the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner. The District Magistrate has submitted an explanation. From this explanation we And that in fact the trying Magistrate did receive all the evidence, oral or documentary, that was offered. With regard to the. first ground what the Magistrate' says is that the Subdivisional Magistrate, that is to say, the trying Magistrate, made a memorandum of the evidence in the manner required by Sub-section (3) to Section 356 of the Code of Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Quadir Vs. Shahbazpur Cooperative Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal377
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. This is a Rule which was obtained by the decree-holder in an application under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by a Co-operative Society for enforcing a charge under Section 19 of Act II of 1912. The application was undoubtedly made under Section 73, and under that Section we are of opinion that the Co-operative Society could have no priority to other creditors, unless there are one or more persons than one who have made applications to the Court for the execution of decrees for payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtors. To hold otherwise would be to give these Co-operative Societies a power which even Government in its much discussed certificate procedure does not claim. They would chum in other words to recover money without either decree or certificate or any legal title to enforce their debt. Admittedly, there is no charge, in this case within the meaning of Section 20 of the Co-operative Societies Act, so that the proviso ...
Tag this Judgment!Harchand Ray Gobordhon Das Vs. the Bengal-nagpur Railway Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.838
1. A recognised agent as such has no right of audience.2. We must, therefore, discharge the rule with costs (hearing fee, one gold mohur) payable to opposite party. Bengal-Nagpur Railway Company....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »