Kolkata Court November 1915 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.
Mejajennessa Bibi Vs. Sheik Didary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.86
1. This matter arises out of an appeal which was filed in the lower Appellate Court on the 9th September 1914. On a subsequent date the respondent applied that the appellant should be directed to give security- for costs and, on the 20th November 1914, an order was made requiring the appellant to furnish security for the costs which had been incurred in the first Court and the costs which might be incurred in the Appellate Court. This security was directed to be furnished by the 30th November 1914. As the learned Judge of the Court below observes in his order of the 16th March 1915, practically six extensions of the time were given to the appellant to furnish the security required from him. However, the security was not furnished and on the 4th January 1915, the Judge passed an order which is in effect an order rejecting the appeal under Order XLI, Rule 10, Clause (2), Code of Civil Procedure. Then on the 18th February 1915, the appellant presented an application for the restoration of...
Abdul Karim Mean Vs. Miajan Mianji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.232
1. The plaintiff-appellant sued to recover possession of the land in dispute, on the ground that it had been surrendered to him by defendant No. 4, who was one of the tenants who held the tenure which comprised the land in suit. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree, but on appeal that decree has been reversed and the main ground upon which the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit is that the tenancy of Ahmad Ali and his co-sharers being a joint one there could not be a valid surrender of a portion of the holding by one of the tenants. It appears, however, that there was division of the land of the holding as between themselves and that division was binding upon them, although not binding upon the landlord. Ahmad Ali used to pay his share of the rent to the landlord and being unable to pay the arrears of rent, he executed a registered document in favour of the landlord transferring his interest in the holding. Even if there could be no valid surrender, we thin...
Johue Lall Dey Vs. Dhirendra Nath Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.707
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the question arises in connection with the Will of a man called Fakir Chand Dey. The appellant is the sister's daughter's husband, and the respondent is the son of the testator.2. The Will was made on the 7th of April 1903 and under it the appellant took a substantial interest. The Will is alleged to have been revoked on the 29th of August 1913. The testator, apparently, was taken ill in August 1913; he went to a place called Karmatar and returned from there some time in August, and, according to the endorsement in the Will, he cancelled his Will on the 29th of August 1913.3. The appellant puts his case in two ways. He says first of all that the whole of the cancellation was not genuine. He alleges that the handwriting on the Will which purports to be the cancellation is not in the handwriting of the testator, that the signature which purports to be the signature of the testator in respect of the cancellation is not the signature of the testator,...
Gangadhar Karmakar and ors. Vs. Shekhar Basini Dasya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.812
1. This second appeal arises out of a rent suit brought under rather curious circumstances. The plaintiff, a lady, alleging that she purchased the land from the original proprietor, sued her father as a tenant for rent for the last two years of her vendor's incumbency and for the first two years of her possession. The father set up the title in himself and said that he purchased the holding benami in the name of his daughter and leased it out to his son-in-law--'nominally for his daughter. The learned Munsif declined to have anything to do with these conflicting claims and decided that, because the plaintiff had not attempted to collect or collected any rents from her father, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist. The daughter went in appeal before the learned District Judge, and he held, on a preliminary objection, that the question of the conflicting title to or interest in the land had been decided by the Munsif and that it was competent to him to deal with the appea...
Sital Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-04-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.974
1. The petitioner in this case has been bound down under Section 108 (6), Criminal Procedure Code. We granted a Rule calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the order should not be set aside, on the ground that upon the true construction and interpretation of the leaflet as a whole the Court below ought to have held that it does not contain any matter the dissemination of which is punishable under Section 153 A, Indian Penal Code, which necessitates there being an intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that even if the matter or some of the matter contained in the leaflet was likely to promote feelings of enmity or hatred, there could be no order made under Section 108, unless the Court was satisfied that there was an intention in using the words of the leaflet to promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred; and we were referred to Joy Chandra Sarkar v. Emperor 10 Ind. Cas. 948 : 38 C. 214 at p. 225 : ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›