Kolkata Court January 1915 Judgments
D.N. Ghose and Bros Vs. Popat NaraIn Bros
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal819
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal which arises out of a suit between a vendor and a purchaser of coal,and one which should have been disposed of at the trial both on the question of liability and on the question of damages. However, a reference was directed.2. More than once this Bench has protested against a reference being directed in cases of this nature. I wish again to repeat the protest, and I do this in the language of the Court of Appeal in England when Lord Justice Bowen expressed his desire to protest against the melancholy spectacle which the case before him presented. He said ......'Cases ought only to be referred to other persons to assess the damages where the inquiry involved questions of detail winch it would be wasting the time of the Court to investigate.' The opinion so expressed by Lord Justice Bowen was shared by Lord Justice Cotton and Lord Justice Fry, the latter of whom said that ''he had more than once expressed his fears lest the practice of directing enquirie...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Ghose and Brothers Vs. Popat NaraIn Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.990
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal which arises out of a suit between a vendor and a purchaser of coal and one which should have been disposed of at the trial both on the question of liability and on the question of damages. However, a reference was directed.2. More than once this Bench has protested against a reference being directed in cases of this nature. I wish again to repeat the protest, and I do this in the language of the Court of Appeal in England, when Lord Justice Bowen expressed his desire to protest against the melancholy spectacle which the case before him presented. He said, he 'sometimes feared that profane persons might not be entirely wrong in complaining that the Courts of justice had, at least, some of the attributes of the Circumlocution Office. His Lordship had never said anything disrespectful of the Chancery Division, but it was a melancholy spectacle to see a common law cause which might have been heard in one day transformed and inflated into a Chance...
Tag this Judgment!Nagesur Pershad Singh and ors. Vs. Bindeshwari Prosad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.402
Holmwood, J.1. These second appeals arise out of suits brought by the plaintiffs to set aside certain mortgage-decrees and sales held in accordance therewith, on the ground that they were tainted with fraud and that they were illegal and the sales were equally so, and that decrees which purported to be against their father did not bind the plaintiffs.2. It is conceded that at the time the decrees were passed the plaintiffs were not in existence and, therefore, had no cause of action as regards setting aside the decrees. But the prayers of their plaint show that this is the main ground of their case, the sales being merely subsidiary. The first prayer clumps the decrees and sales together. The second is clearly based on the contention that the decrees being illegal, the sales held under them must also be illegal. On the plaint itself there seem to be many grounds on which the suit is not maintainable. The first we have already stated, thai the plaintiffs were not alive at the time the d...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Sahai and ors. Vs. Palakdhari Raut and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal345,29Ind.Cas.236
Holmwood, J.1. These second appeals raise the question, whether or not the respondents are entitled to abatement of rent under Section 38 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on a finding by the Courts below that the respondents will have to pay rent as fixed by the Settlement for karary land, if the land re-appears or gets covered with earth. There were two descriptions of land in suit, and it is admitted that as far as the land that has been washed away is concerned, the abatement is permanent bat it should Lave been made under Section 52, and not under Section 38. Still the fact remains that even this land, as the Subordinate Judge points out, may come back again. We are, therefore, met with the proposition that nothing in this world can be said to be permanent.2. As regards the question of the sandy land, which is the point really argued before us, it is contended that there ought to be a remand for a prqjjer finding whether the deterioration is permanent or not. But both the lower Courts hav...
Tag this Judgment!Kshirod Chandra Ghose Vs. Srish Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.894
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for establishment of a right of way and for other reliefs.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they and their predecessors before them had enjoyed the right of way peaceably, openly, as of right and without interruption for about a hundred years, and prayed for establishment of their ancestral right of way, 'a right by possession for a period over the period of limitation, or a right of easement by user and necessity.'3. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the plaintiffs had no right of way. The Court of first instance held that the pathway beyond 3 cubits in width had been obstructed for seven years before the suit and apparently treating the suit as one under Section 26 of the Limitation Act, held that such portion of the claim must be dismissed, but gave a decree for a right of way to the extent of 3 cubits in width in respect of which the plaintiffs had proved user within two years of the suit. Both parties appealed to the lower Appellate Court and ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Mohan Ghose and ors. and Vs. Raj Mohan Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal831,29Ind.Cas.177
Holmwood, J.1. Two Rules were obtained in this matter of a common manager for an estate in Dacca. The first, which is Rule No. 360, was a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge refusing to remove the common manager should not be set aaide on the grounds stated in the petition, and why such other order should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit. The second Rule, No. 1090, was in respect of a specific order made by the District Judge permitting the common manager to raise Rs. 7,000 for litigation and other necessary purposes by giving karmi grants to raiyats.2. With regard to the first matter, we do not in any way wish to enter into the question whether the common manager is good or bad or whether he ought or ought not to be removed. What we do find is that the District Judge has not made the inquiry which, in our opinion, he should have made ugon the allegations before him and which under jurisdiction conferred on him by Section 98...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gani Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.441
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the proceedings should not be quashed on the ground that there was no such sanction as was requisite under Section 195, Clause (c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused presented before the Registrar a certain document for registration. The complainant denied the execution of the document, but the Registrar directed it to be registered. Thereupon a civil suit was instituted by the complainant before the Munsif to have it declared that the document was a forgery and the Munsif declared it to be a forgery. A complaint was then presented before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer under Sections, amongst others, 467, 471, Indian Penal Code, and the Magistrate issued process under Section 467, Indian Penal Code. The present petitioner, that is the accused, thereupon applied for and obtained the present Rule. The point that has been argued in this case is solely as to whether sanction is required for prosecutio...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath Dass and anr. Vs. Monmohan Topedar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal759(1),30Ind.Cas.34
1. This was a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Small Cause Court, dismissing a suit for limitation, should not be set aside.2. The case is one which clearly falls under Section 22 of the Limitation Act; and the question is whether it can be said that a pro forma defendant, who was joined at the institution of the suit and who is made a plaintiff after the period of limitation, can be brought within the meaning of Section 22 of the Limitation Act as a new plaintiff. On the authority of several cases, first of all the case of Nagendrabala Debya v. Tarapada Acharjee 4 Ind. Cas. 369 : 35 C. 1065 : 8 C.L.H. 286 : 13 C.W.N. 186 : M.L.T. 91 then that of Husainara Begum v. Rahmannessa Begum 8 Imd. Cas. 837 : 38 C. 342 : 13 C.L.J. 3 and lastly that of Narsinha Krishnaji v. Vaman Vankatesh Dcshpande 4 Ind. Cas. 249 : 34 B. 91 : 11 Bom. L.R. 1102 we are of opinion that the rule, that a party transferred from the side of the defendants to that of the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Singh Vs. Barhamdeo Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.211
Coxe, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent in this appeal obtained a decree on a mortgage on the 28th July 1905. The date fixed for payment was the 28th January 1906. On the 31st May 1909, he applied, as the Courts below describe it, to make the decree absolute and his application was granted the same day. The defendant appealed, and the appeal was decreed and the case remanded to the Court of first instance on the 7th March 1910. An appeal was preferred to this Court against the order of remand probably about June 1910. The proceeding, however, continued in the first Court and was disposed of on the 19th September 1910. The Court of first instance held that the application to make the decree obsolete was barred by Article 181 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. On the 21st April 1911, this Court dismissed the appeal against the order of the 7th March 1910, and on the 16th May 1911, the plaintiff appealed to the lower Appellate Court against the order of the 19th September 1910. The appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Ajiman Bibi and ors. Vs. Reasat Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.570
1. The object of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is 'to provide a speedy remedy for that class of cases where a person in physcial possession of property is forcibly dispossessed from it against his will and consent.' See Tarini Mohun Mozumdar v. Gunga Prosad Chuckerbutty 14 C. 649. The main question for determination, therefore, in a case under this section is whether the plaintiff while in physical possession of property has been dispossessed of the same in the manner and within the time specified in the section. If he was in physical possession he can be restored to such possession under the decree of the Court. A man in joint possession of immoveable property is as much in physical possession of his share as the entire body of co-sharers are in physical possession of the whole and such joint possession can as well be physically restored in respect of his share as the possession of the whole can be restored to the entire body of co-sharers. The case of Hari Narain Das v. Ellemj...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »