Kolkata Court November 1915 Judgments
Simrick Lal Bhakat Vs. Radharaman Kalidaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.276
Roe, J.1. The sole question of law involved in this case is, it being proved that a transfer of property was made to the prejudice of the decree-holder between the date of the order by a Munsif for an attachment of the property transferred and the date of the promulgation of that order, is that alienation void in so far as it affects the attaching decree-holder. I have no doubt that under Section 276 of the old Code (and this is admitted by the learned Vakil for the appellant) an attachment is not a good attachment unless it has been 'duly intimated and made known.' i am asked to hold that from Section 64 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, the words 'duly intimated and made known' have been deliberately omitted and the law changed. I cannot believe that such a change could have been made in the law without some explanation of the change in the statement of objects and reasons. The law as it now stands is no less clear than it was in the old Code. Section 64 sets forth the effect of an...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Ray Chowdhuri Vs. Chandra Kanta Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.807
1. This is an appeal from a decree rejecting a plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, Clause (c), Civil Procedure Code. We have not had the advantage of hearing any one for the respondent; but the facts appear to be as follows:2. The plaint is dated the 20th February 1914, and originally it bore a stamp of the value of Rs. 10. It is perfectly clear, however, as the learned Pleader for the plaintiff-appellant now concedes, that the suit is much more than a suit for a mere declaratory decree. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, was perfectly correct when he decided by his order of the 7th March 1914, that the Court-fee paid was insufficient. That order, however, might have been to some extent misleading in regard. to the amount of the Court-fee that ought to have been paid. The suggestion then made was that the plaint should have been stamped as if it was a plaint for the recovery of the property to which the suit related. The plaintiff founding himself on that part of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Goberdhone Seal and Vs. Lakhypria Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.3
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application for security for costs in an appeal against a judgment passed by Chaudhuri, J., in Insolvency. It is unnecessary to recapitulate the facts which are set out in the petition. The application is opposed both on grounds of law and fast. As regards the first question, the point is whether Order XLI, Rule 10, applies to the case of an appeal from an order passed by a Judge in Insolvency under Act III of ] 909. Section 8(6) of that Act states that an appeal shall lie in the same way and be subject to the same provisions as an appeal from an order made by a Judge in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. The question then is, does the order apply to the latter case. No doubt, the case of Sesha Ayyar v. Nagarathna Lala 27 M. 121 at p. 123 : 13 M.L.J. 362, answers this question in the negative. This case was decided prior to the present Code and has not been referred to, nor followed so far as we are aware in this Court where the previous practice has b...
Tag this Judgment!Bilasiram Thakursidass Vs. Ezekiel Abraham Gubbay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.1
Lancelot Sandserson, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought his action against the defendants claiming damages for broach of contract. The contract was in respect of 300 tons of Brown Java Sugar, which was to be delivered in Calcutta, and the contract price was rupees six and pies six per bazar maund; the goods were to be delivered Ex. Kidderpore Docks Jetty or ghat, and the shipments were to be made by steamers during July to December 1914. The date of the contract was the 4th of June 1914 and the first shipment would have to be made in July. But in the contract there was a clause giving the shipper seven days' margin, go that if ho shipped the July shipment by the 7th of August, it would be in accordance with the terms of the contract.' It was given in evidence in the course of the case that the length of the voyage would be eleven days but it was said on behalf of the plaintiff that it would be thirteen days, and for the sake of this case we may take it from eleven to thirteen da...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Kumar Dutt Purkayastha Vs. Jananendra Kumar Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.801
1. In this case, it is conceded that the revenue sale of 1897 under which the plaintiff-appellant claims, became final and conclusive mere than twelve years before the date on which the suit was instituted. That being so, we may accept the contention of the appellant's learned Pleader that the finding in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court that the principal defendants have been in occupation of the lands in suit as trespassers for more, than twelve years before the institution of the suit, refers to adverse possession before the sale. Assuming this in the appellant's favour, the appeal may be decided on a very short ground. The question is one of limitation. Is or is not Article 121 of the first Schedule to the Limitation Act. applicable to this case. It is applicable if, the nature of the interest acquired by the principal defendants by adverse possession, is an 'encumbrance' within the meaning of the word as it is there used. It is a, question of terminology. Is such an intere...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chandra Bose Vs. Hira Lal Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.263
1. The question that is raised in this Rule is one of considerable importance to the public having dealings with the Special Tribunal constituted to hear cases from the orders of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. It is perfectly clear that some modus operandi must be devised by which the Tribunal may have access to land acquisition and other records that are necessary for the purpose of their business. But there appeared to be technical difficulties under the law. We, therefore, asked the learned Government Pleader, Babu Ram Churn Mitter, to give us his assistance in the matter, and we have also heard the learned Vakil Babu Mohendra Nath Roy for the petitioner, and it appears to us fairly clear that in the exercise of oar powers of supervision under the Charter, we ought to give directions to the lower Court in the same way in which a Bench of this Court appears to have done in the case of Golap Coomary Dossee v. Soondur Narain Deo 4 C.L.R. 36. There the Court also dealt with administrat...
Tag this Judgment!Kassim Ebrahim Saleji Vs. Johurmull Khemka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.799
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This appeal is from an order made by Mr. Justice Hasan Imam on the 3rd of March in this year, in which he refused to set aside a decree for specific performance of an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. The decree was made on the 9th of December 1914, and it was made ex parte, the defendant not being present or taking any part in the proceedings. Then in consequence of a letter which was dated the 22nd of January 1915 and written by the plaintiff's Solicitor to the defendant, an application was made to Mr. Justice Imam to set aside the decree on the ground that the writ of summons had not been served upon the defendant. The learned Judge refused to set aside the decree and this is an appeal from his judgment.2. Now, the service was supported in the first instance upon an affidavit in the usual form, which is to be found at page 15 of the paper-book, in which one Sitaram, who was employed by the plaintiff, and another Ishak, who was in the employ of...
Tag this Judgment!Anila Bala Dasi Vs. Rajendra Nath Dalal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.227
1. This was a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Court referred to in the petition should not be set aside and the opposite party directed to make a full discovery of the assets of the deceased by an affidavit sworn by them personally in the form required by law.2. It appears that a petition was filed before the learned Judge, averring that the inventory filed by the other side as executors to her husband's estate, which alleged that only forty-seven thousand Rupees came into their hands in cash, was erroneous and that as a matter of fact they obtained a lakh of Rupees or more and it asked the District Judge to direct the opposite party to make a full discovery of the assets of the deceased by an affidavit sworn by the opposite party personally. The learned Judge refused the application, on the ground that there appeared to him to be nothing in the Probate Act which would enable him to make any such discovery. He apparently did not have it brought t...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chandra Sen and ors. Vs. Raja Peary Mohan Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.812
1. The question which is raised by this Rule is really one as to what constitutes the refusal to entertain an application to sue in forma pauperis under rule 15, Order XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code.2. It appears that the applicant applied once before the same learned Judge and evidence was taken on both sides. It was found that the applicant had made false statements, that his own purohit contradicted him and he was owner of a house. The Judge, therefore, rejected his application basing his decision formally upon rule 2, namely, that he had not furnished the particulars required with regard to the plaint.3. It was sought to be argued at first that rule 15, Order XXXIII, applies to refusals under rule 7 and does not apply at all to refusals under rule 5. That contention cannot for one moment be entertained, for there is not the slightest doubt that all the grounds in rule 5 except the ground (a) are grounds going to the merits and only to be determined by evidence. The question, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Mohan Saha and ors. Vs. Ramkumar Saha and Chittagong District ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.305
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The history of the litigations, which have culminated in these appeals, consists principally of matters of record, and has not. formed the subject of controversy in the elaborate arguments addressed to this Court. In 1895, one Ram Kamal Saha made over a sum of money to the District Board of Chittagong for the acquisition of a tract of land, in order that a tank might be excavated thereon for the benefit of the inhabitants of the locality. On the 15th June 1897, the usual declaration was published under the Land Acquisition Act; the land was, in due course, delivered to and became vested in the District Board on the 11th and 21st February 1S98. It subsequently transpired that Ram Kamal Saha, the donor, was not moved by motives of public philanthropy, but that his real object as also the object of Ramsundar Saha, now represented by the appellants, his three sons, was to spite bis relation Ramkumar Saha (the respondent in these appeals), who was owner of a substant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »