Kolkata Court December 1915 Judgments
Mohesh Chandra Addy Vs. Panchu Mudali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.395
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The whole trouble in this case is due to a misunderstanding and some uncertainty of practice in the acceptance of vakalatnama in the moffusil.2. The facts are that the petitioner filed a suit in the Small Cause Court at Puri in charge of the Second Munsif and engaged three Pleaders, Babus Purna Chandra Addy, Raj Kishor Das and Jogendra Chandra Mitra. Babu Purna Chandra accepted the vakalatnama by endorsing his name on its back as usual. The two other Pleaders did not sign the vakalatnama. On the date of hearing Babu Jogendra Chandra signed the hajira of witnesses and Babu Raj Kishor attempted to conduct the case by offering to examine the witnesses. There is some difference between the petitioner and the learned Munsif as to what then took place. The learned Munsif says he asked Raj Kishor Babu to accept the vakalatnama on the record, the petitioner says Raj Kishore was asked to file a fresh vakalatnama. I take the facts as stated by the learned Munsif to be correct...
Tag this Judgment!Chandradaya Sen Vs. Bhagaban Chandra Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.200
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that the suit is of a nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, and does not come within Article 41 of the Second Schedule of that Act. It is pointed out that the plaintiff's case was that he was a tenant under the defendant No. 1, and he sued to recover from the defendants the whole amount paid by him to save the property a portion of which was held by him as a tenant under the defendant No. 1; in other words, he denied any common liability with the defendants which is the foundation of a suit for contribution. That no doubt was the plaintiff's case, but there was an alternative case, viz., that if the plaintiff was held liable to contribute then a decree for proportionate amounts might be passed against the defendants. 3. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiff was a co-sharer and liable to contribute and on that footing gave a mo...
Tag this Judgment!Prince Golam Muhammad Vs. Akhoy Kumar Laha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.205
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of money paid to the defendant No. 1 for granting a certain lease which the defendant agreed to execute in favour of the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant in respect of certain premises known as 46, 46-1 to 46-12, Bentinck Street, in the town of Calcutta. The premises in question were part of an estate which was wakf property and the defendant No. 1 is the mutwalli of that property. In view of the contentions that have been raised before us, it is necessary to state that the plaintiff had been a tenant of this mutawalli for many many years and, therefore, presumably must have known that the property was wakf property. The salami was fixed at 20 thousand rupees, but the plaintiff states that two thousand rupees was paid as earnest money for the execution of the bima-patra which is called an agreement of sale in the plaint, and the same expression 'earnest money' occurs in the agreement which is upon...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Babu Poorna Chandra Addy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.657
D. Chatterjee, J.1. Babu Purna Chandra Addy is a Pleader practising in the Court at Puri. He and his cousin Mohesh had an execution case before the second Munsif of Puri. On the date fixed for sale the decree-holders found out that the sale proclamation had not been duly published. They applied for the issue of a fresh sale proclamation on the ground that the non-publication was due to the negligence of the Court officers. If the facts were as stated above, the most proper and just course for the learned Munsif would have been to grant the application. He rejected it, however, and struck off the case and the whole cost of the execution was lost for no default of the decree-holders. They were naturally annoyed and took legal advice ass to whether they could recover damages from the Munsif. It is said that they were advised that such a case would lie, their advisers relying on the case of Tarucknath Mookerjee v. Collector of Hooghly 13 W.R. 13; 4 B.L.R.A.C.37. Mohesh insisted upon fighti...
Tag this Judgment!Mohabarsha Bankapur Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.393
Holmwood, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by a mohajan of the Bombay Presidency against the Secretary of State for India in Council in respect of certain goods which were lost in transit on one of the connected Railways, which carried the goods from Beldanga to Benares. The goods were silk goods of the value of Rs. 500 and the principal defence of the Railway Company was that they came under Section 75 of the Railways Act, IX of 1890, and as they were not insured, the Railway was free from all liability under the said section. There was a further defence that the sender of the consignment executed a risk note in Form Y specially absolving the Railway Company from all liability and the package was, therefore, booked and carried at owner's risk.2. The Court of first instance found as a fact on the first point that the value of the contents of the parcel was declared at the time of booking as required by Section 75 and that no insurance charge was demanded on behalf o...
Tag this Judgment!Kiranbala Debi Vs. Kali Charan Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.587
1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampore directing that the life-interest of a Hindu widow in certain Government promissory notes should be sold in the first instance and if this is not sufficient, the promissory notes themselves should be sold.2. The decree against the widow was for mesne profits of a property recovered by the decree-holder in litigation with her husband. Part of the mesne profits accrued due during the husband's life-time and part after his death.3. The learned Judge divided the claim into three periods: 1. The period of the husband's life-time for a few months in 1312. 2. The period of the executors of the estate under a forged Will during the remainder of 1312 and up to Assin 1316. 3. The widow's period from Kartick 1316 to Chaitra 1317 when she gave up possession. Shyamacharan Singh, the husband, died on the 1st April 1906. Litigation was then still going on. Plaintiff's title to recover possession of 1/3rd had already been...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Chandra Kar Vs. A.C. Dulcken and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.78
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This case has taken rather a curious course, and it is about to be decided by the Court upon a point which, as far as I understand, was not taken in the Court of first instance, and was not mentioned in the grounds of appeal, but was one which occurred to the members of the Court, and which was put yesterday to Mr. Das and, I may say for myself, the case was argued exceedingly well on both sides, and when Mr. Das was faced with this point he met it with the candour, which always characterizes his conduct in Court, and inspite of his ingenuity he had to admit practically that there was no answer to it. When I come to deal with the question about costs, I shall have to say something of the course the case has taken. Before I deal with that, I propose to state shortly the facts of the case and then give my judgment.2. The appeal is by Shib Chandra Kar, who appeals, as I have already said in dealing with the other part of the case, against the decision in favour ...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Mathura Sundari Dassi Vs. Haran Chandra Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.634
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. With regard to the preliminary objection which was raised by Mr. Jackson, when that point was taken, the case was argued upon the assumption that the suit had been dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8, which deals with default of appearance, and, therefore, I propose, whatever may have been the real position, to deal with the argument which was presented to us by the learned Counsel upon the basis that the order by Mr. Justice Imam dismissing the suit was made under Order IX, Rule 8. That order was made on the 5th of February 1915. Then an application was made on the?5th of March of this year to set aside that order of dismissal. That was heard by the learned Judge and was refused, and the plaintiff appealed from that order of refusal to restore the case and set aside the dismissal, and a preliminary point has been taken by the learned Counsel for the defendant that no appeal lies from such an order.2. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the defendant, Mr. J...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahab and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.235
1. We think that the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants must fail on the ground that the notice given under Section 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not a proper notice. The question of notice was raised in the sixth issue in the case and the Subordinate Judge's decision on that issue runs as follows:The case set up in the plaint is altogether different from the case stated in the notice, Exhibit 13, served on the defendant No. 1. In the notice the plaintiffs admitted the principle of distribution of the Collector to be quite correct, but said that the map drawn was not correct, inasmuch as instead of drawing the boundary lines at right angles to their jote land, they were drawn so as to include obtuse angles, so the notice appears to be defective and the suit must fail on that ground.2. The lower Appellate Court, no doubt, has not come to any finding upon this point, apparently because the plaintiffs did not argue the point before it. But we think the Subordinate Judge is right i...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Causley Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.661
1. In this case the appellant Phillip Lloyd Causley was found guilty on three charges under Section 465, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, i.e., eight months on each charge. The appellant is stated in the Magistrate's judgment to be a lad of 16 or 17 years of age. We are told by his mother that he is only 15. The appeal was admitted on the question of sentence, but has been argued before us also on the question of law arising in the case. The facts are not in dispute. They are fully set out in the judgment of the Magistrate and need not be re-stated here. The question is whether the signing of the certificates in a false name, and giving in each case an address which was not his, amounts to forgery on the part of the appellant. It may be that the action of the appellant was not 'dishonest', taking that word in the sense ascribed to it by the Indian Penal Code, Sections 23 and 24. There can, however, be no doubt that he acted 'fraudulently'. His inten...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »