Kolkata Court July 1914 Judgments
Narendar Nath Basu Vs. H.L. Stephenson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1914
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.618
Woodroffe, J.1. It has been pointed out to us on behalf of the appellant that the rules were published under Section 33(2)(a), and it has been argued that Clause (a) refers to the election after the Medical Council has come to existence, and not to the election for the purpose of bringing the Council into existence. Therefore, it has been argued that the rules were 'ultra vires,' although it is conceded that they would have been valid, had the notification purported to proceed under the first Clause of Section 33. This argument was not raised in the first Court. But if we assume without deciding that the rules were ultra vires as is contended, then the application must fail; for it is clearly based on the assumption that the rules were not ultra vires, but that they were valid rules which had not been given effect to in one particular by the Returning Officer; for, what the application asked for is an order on the Returning Officer to publish, by notification in the Calcutta Gazette as...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Amrita Sundari Debi Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Munsi SherajuddIn Ah ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal464,29Ind.Cas.156
1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has resulted in this appeal, consists of a large tract of land, included in a ckur formed in the bed of the river Ganges, called also Kirti Nasha, in the District of Faridpur. The land is described in the plaint as comprised within three sets of boundaries which constitute three distinct parcels ka, Kha, ga. The areas of the parcels were stated approximately in the plaint as 10 kanis (=90 bighas), 3 drones (=432 bighas) and 15 1/2 drones (=2232 bighas) respectively. On measurement, however, the aggregate area of the first two parcels has turned out to be 347 bighas, and the area of the third plot 4221 bighas. The case for the plaintiffs is that the disputed lands are included in estate No. 5603 of the Faridpur Collectorate, held in patni by them under the proprietors. They allege that the lands are partly re-formation on the site of, and partly accretion to three mouzas Bhaga Chur, Chur Datali, and Chur Lasti also called Chur Bhaga. The ch...
Tag this Judgment!Dwijendra Nath Purkayastha Vs. Golok Nath Sarma Purkayastha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.574
1. This appeal is directed against the grant of probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by one Janakinath Sarma on the 9th September 1901, the day previous to that of his death. Janaki, who was one of a family of four brothers, left a widow Sushila, who was at the time 14 years of age, and a boy, Dwijendra Nath, only two months old. By the Will, his brothers Golok Nath, Baikuntba Nath and Mathura Nath were appointed successive executors. On the 10th February 1901, Goloknath applied for probate of the Will. Citations were issued upon Baikuutha and Mathura Nath as also upon Sushila and Dwijendra Nath. There was no opposition and probate was granted on the 13th March 1902. On the 22nd December 1911, Dwijendra Nath, still an infant, made the present application through his mother, Sushila, for revocation of the probate on the allegation that the alleged Will had not been executed by his father. The District Judge was satisfied upon the evidence that notices had not been properly se...
Tag this Judgment!Aminnessa Vs. Jinnat Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal751
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for declaration of her raiyati right in the land in suit and khas possession thereof. It appears that the plaintiff became 16 annas tenant of an ocenpaney holding by purchase from her husband in the year 1314 and that she then found that the under-raiyat on the land who is defendant 2 had sold the under-raiyati to defendant No. 1 eight years before in 1306.2. It is admitted that the lease was only for a term and it appears that now that lease must have expired, since move than 9 years have elapsed from the time when it was sold to defendant No. 1. Be that as it may, it is conceded that the learned Judge's finding that all leasehold property is saleable and that there is nothing in the Bengal Tenancy Act to prevent the sale of an under-raiyati is not a correct view of the law. That is a rule of English law and it is incorporated in the Transfer of Property Act. But the Transfer of Property Act by Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Muralidhar Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Mohini Mohan Kor and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal837,30Ind.Cas.510
Woodroffe, J.1. In this case the only question that arises is, whether or not a succession certificate was necessary and whether the appellants who failed to produce such certificate in the Court of first instance should have been permitted to do so by the lower Appellate Court before whom the certificate was produced.2. I think that the Court should have admitted the certificate, making such order as to costs as was proper by reason of the non-production of the certificate in the Court of first instance.3. We, however, now, set aside the decree of the District Judge and remit the appeal to him for a re-hearing. The succession certificate is filed here and will go back with the other records to him.4. As the appellants are responsible for not producing the certificate, we will make no order as to costs in the present appeal and do not disturb the order as to costs made by the lower Appellate Court.Coxe, J.5. I agree....
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gani Chowdhury Vs. Makbul Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal348,(1915)ILR42Cal745
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to have the holding of the defendant declared such a holding as can be annulled under Section 37 of Act XI of 1859.2. It appears that the plaintiff is the purchaser of the rights of defendant No. 5 who purchased the taraf at a sale for arrears of revenue. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are persons whom the Judge found to have cultivated the land themselves for 30 years before 1895 when they obtained pottah as raiyats at fixed rates. That pottah of course confarred upon them higher privileges than that of ordinary occupancy raiyats, but it certainly did not take away the occupancy right which they had already acquired, for they must have acquired that right prior to the Bengal Tenancy Act, not that in our opinion it would make any difference. The protection of occupancy raiyats at fixed rates which is referred to in Section 37 of Act XI of 1859 is not one of the ordinary exceptions in that section....
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gani Chaudhury Vs. Makbul Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1914
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.19
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to have the holding of the defendant declared such a holding as can be annulled under Section 37 of Act XI of 1859.2. It appears that the plaintiff is the purchaser of the rights of defendant No. 5, who purchased the taraf at a sale for arrears of revenue. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are persons whom the Judge found to have cultivated the land themselves for 30 years before 1895, when they obtained pottah as raiyats at fixed rates. That pottah, of course, conferred upon them higher privileges than that of ordinary occupancy raiyats, but it certainly did not take away the occupancy right which they had already acquired, for they must have acquired that right prior to the Bengal Tenancy Act, not that in our opinion it would make any difference. The protection of occupancy raiyats at fixed rates which is referred to in Section 37 of Act XI of 1859 is not one of the ordinary exceptions in that section. It is a proviso expr...
Tag this Judgment!Mokashadayini Dassi and ors. Vs. Karnadhar Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal421,31Ind.Cas.702
1. This appeal is directed against an order of dismissal of an application for revocation of Probate. The respondent Karnadhar Mandal applied for Probate of a Will alleged to have been executed on the 1st March 1886 by Gobinda Chandra Mandal, a cousin of his father Lukshmi Narain Mandal. The effect of the Will is to give a life-interest to the daughter of the testator Brojeswari who was a childless widow when her father died in 1886. After the termination of the life-interest in favour of the daughter, the estate was to vest in Karnadhar Mandal and his paternal uncle Dukhiram Mandal. Brojeswari died in 1907. Notice of the present application for Probate, which was not made till the, 2lst September 142, was served upon Lukshmi Narain Mandal and Dukhiram, Mandal. There was no opposition and the District Delegate granted Probate on the 27th November 1912. On the 21st December 1912 the appellants applied for revocation of the Probate on the allegation that they had acquired an interest in ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Agarwalla and anr. Vs. Lachi Ram Kishen Dyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.705
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of money due on a settlement of accounts. It appears that there were sale and purchase transactions between the firms of the plaintiff and defendants. The case for the plaintiff is that upon adjustment of accounts to the end of the year 1964 (Sambat) Rs. 10,049-15 were found due from the firm of the defendants (Ganga Ram and Moti Ram) to the firm of the plaintiff (Luchi Ram Kishen Lal), and that thereafter payments were made, with the result that at the date of the institution of the suit, a sum of Rs. 7,900 was payable to the plaintiff by the defendants jointly. The defendants, who are brothers, filed separate written-statements. The first defendant stated that he had separated from his brother and had made, on his own account, a payment of Rs. 1,200 to the father of the plaintiff on the 15th July 1908, in consideration, whereof the latter had agreed to release him, from all liability on account of the transactions mentione...
Tag this Judgment!Garden Reach Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Vs. Secretary of State for ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal675
Fletcher, J.1. In England you cannot ask for a review of judgment; you ask for appeal on the ground of new evidence. Here the document was not in existence.2. In the cases of Ram Ratan Sahu v. Mohant Sahn (1907) 6 C. L. J. 74., Hazari Mall v. Janaki Prasad (1907) 6 C. L. J. 92., Ramyad Sahu v. Bindeswari Kumar Upadhay (1907) 6 C. L. J. 102. and Udit Chobey v. Rashika Prasad Upadhya (1907) 6 C. L. J. 662., in which Order XLVII Rule 1, had been discussed and it was held that it Was not only competent to a Court of Appeal, but it maybe its duty, under certain circumstances, to take notice of events which have happened since the order challenged in appeal was made. He also referred to the case of Kotaghiri Venkata Suhbamma Rao v. Vellanki Venkatarama Rao (1900) I. L. R. 24 Mad. 1, and Kessowji Issur v. The Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company (1907) I. L. R. 31 Bom. 381, to show that Order XLVII, Rule 1 does not authorize the review of a decree, which was right when, made, on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »