Kolkata Court December 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.
Kumar Krishna Dutt Vs. Hari Narayan Ganguli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.708
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is a suit by an attorney to recover from the defendant, who is an infant, the sum of Rs. 446-2-0 for balance of taxed costs in Suit No. 158 of 1912, which was instituted in this Court on the infant's behalf by his mother as next friend for declaration of the infant's title to and possession of certain houses in Calcutta. The plaintiff submits that he is entitled to a charge for the said sum on the said premises, and further that he is entitled in this suit to an order for sale of the premises in default of the payment of the amount claimed.2. The defendant, by his guardian ad litem, Sarat Chandra Chatterjee, has filed a written statement, in which he submits that there can be no decree for costs against the infant defendant personally, nor can such costs be recovered from the infant defendant's estate; that the plaintiff should have proceeded by way of an application in Chambers on summons, or, if referred to a suit such suit ought to have been instituted in the Sm...
Moulvi Muhammad Ismail Vs. Samad Ali Bhuyan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.227
1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this case, sued for a declaration that certain documents executed by him in favour of the defendants were invalid and void for want of consideration. It appears that in the Court of first instance the case Was tried on the question whether the plaintiff executed the documents under coercion. The Court of first instance found that there was no coercion exercised upon the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed.2. On appeal the finding of the Court of first instance on the point was affirmed, but then it was contended before that Court that the contracts were opposed to public policy as they were entered into for compounding a criminal case. The learned Subordinate Judge points out that the plaintiff had been summoned only under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. An offence under Section 325 can be compounded with the permission of the Court; and the Magistrate gave permission to compound the case. We have been referred to the case of Nujebar Rah...
Nasuruddi Karikar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.833
1. In this case we do not think that the Deputy Magistrate was correct in looking only to the moveable properties of the proposed sureties, It is true that, under Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, so far as a surety's property is concerned, the bond can only be enforced by attachment and sale of the moveable property belonging to such person.' But that does not mean that the sufficiency of the surety is to be regarded simply from the point of view of the moveable property which he possesses. It is obvious that a man may possess Rs. 1,000 to-day when he passes a bond and get rid of it to-morrow when the bond is passed and have no property against which the Court can proceed. On the other hand, if he has immoveable property, though that cannot be attached under Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, it is nevertheless a much better safeguard. A man can always raise money on his immoveable property if it is not encumbered; and he would probably prefer to do that than go to jail in the ...
Kunya Kesori Pal Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Srimati Bama Sundari Dasya and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.781
1. The holding in question in this suit originally belonged in its entirety to the defendant No. 3. He sold a portion of it to the defendant No. 2 in the name of the latter's mother, the defendant No. 1. The holding is found to be a non-transferable occupancy holding and, as we read the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in the lower Appellate Court, he has also found that, subsequently to the transfer of the portion of the holding, the defendant No. 3 refused to pay rent for that portion and tendered to the landlords the proportionate rent due in respect of the remainder of the holding, which the landlords accepted. The learned Subordinate Judge, in one part of his judgment, says this: 'The plaintiff's first witness Kamini, who is the naib of the plaintiffs owning 6 annas and 7 1/2 gandas share, deposes that the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 refused to pay rent, for the land in suit as it was sold and that the defendant No. 3 paid rent for the lands other than the land in suit. The r...
Tulsi Raut Vs. Sheikh Nabi Bux and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.193
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Mozaffefpur, dated the 31st July 1914, setting aside an order of the Munsif, dated the 23rd April 1914.2. An application was made to the Munsif under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, and Section 47 of the Code, on the allegation that the ex parte decree in the execution of which the land was sold was obtained fraudulently and that the land was sold fraudulently, which the decree-holder purchased himself in the name of his servant and relation Nabi Bux. The first Court held in favour of the applicant and set aside the sale on the grounds, first, that the decree on the strength of which the sale had taken place having been obtained fraudulently and having been set aside, all further proceedings after the decree were null and void; secondly, that there was fraud in the publication of the necessary notice of the sale which had caused inadequacy of price; and thirdly that the real purchaser was the decree-holder himsel...
Kartick Chandra Das Vs. Satya Sree Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.240
1. This is an appeal after remand from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergannahs, who agreeing with the Court of first instance has decreed the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment of the defendants. The defendants claimed a permanent right in the land which is situated in Kidderpore, a suburb of Calcutta. They alleged that they had acquired such a right By long possession beyond the memory of man at a fixed rent and that their predecessors had erected permanent structures on the land. In the first appeal from the Munsif's judgment which was heard by another Subordinate Judge, it was held that the kabuliat set up by the plaintiffs of the year 1301 was a forgery and that the defendants were entitled to the presumption from long possession and from the existence of permanent structures and he accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs appealed to this Court and the appeal was heard by Jenkins, C.J., and Nalini Ranjan Chatterjea, J., who reman...
Peary Mander Vs. Babu Anand Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.695
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiff had acquired the landlord's right by purchase at a sale in execution of a mortgage-decree. He made the successors of the previous holder of the landlord's right, parties to the suit. The main question which was determined by the lower Courts was the question whether the plaintiff had obtained possession of the landlord's right or not. The suit was contested upon this ground both by the tenant and by the successors of the previous holder of the landlord's right. The first Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that ho obtained possession. The Court of first appeal set aside this decision, held that the plaintiff had obtained possession and decreed the suit. The successors of the previous owner of the landlord's right and the tenant both appeal to this Court.2. An objection has been made by the respondent that no appeal lies.3. The plaintiff's title was, however, assailed by the successors of the previous owner and th...
Munshi Ghholam Mowlah Vs. Mollah Ali Hafiz and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.111
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the action was brought by four plaintiffs whose names appear upon the record: the second and third are two sons of Abdur Rahman, who is the first defendant, and the first and the fourth are relations of Abdur Rahman, and the second defendant was a man called Gholam Mowlah, who was a purchaser of certain property from the first defendant. The purchase was effected by a deed which is dated the 12th June 1910; I need not read the deed in detail because it pas been fully commented upon by Mr. Asgbar, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, this morning:--It refers to certain property in Calcutta on a part of which stands a mosque; and Abdur Rahman, the Vendor, in the conveyance refers to the fact that this property was his hereditary property, that his father and he himself have, generation after generation, in succession without any. body's objection all along for more than twelve years, been, enjoying and possessing the proprietary rights thereof o...
Shaikh Karamat Ali and ors. Vs. Hand Man Das Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.56
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by three brothers, namely, Shaikh Karamat Ali, Shaikh Rahim Bux and Shaikh Karim Bux against the defendant for recovery of possession of a pucca house 'which is in the occupation of the defendant and also for recovery of compensation. Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properly Act, a notice is said to have been served on the defendant, a copy of which is on the record. It was served by a Civil and Criminal Court Mukhtear Abdul Rahim on behalf of the two brothers Shaikh Karamat Ali and Shaikh Rahim Bux. The first Court gave a decree to the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed to the District Judge, who set aside the decree of the first Court and dismissed the suit on the ground that the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had not been strictly complied with, inasmuch as there are three plaintiffs in the suit while the notice is by only two of them. The finding of the lower Appellate Court being that the notice was ins...
The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Mon Mohan Roy ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal688(2),35Ind.Cas.999
Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1915.1. These are two Government appeals arising out of an alleged series of ~ conspiracies to defraud the. East Indian and connected Railways by endorsing a false weight on the back of the consignment notes, whereby the railway receipts were made out for sums much less than what was really due to the Railway Companies and the consignees benefited by the fraud to the extent of the freight wrongly calculated, so that in one year the Railway Companies concerned have lost Rs. 12,500.2. The procedure was very simple it sufficiently ingenious. The clerk, whose duty it was on any given day to convert the true weights in ton's into the Indian weights, in maunds from the weighment slip sent from Howrah after the wagons had been weighed, entered a weight several tons less than that on the slip and made the corresponding shortage in the calculation of the weight in maunds. The clerk whose duty it was to calculate the freight to be charged, it is said, was thereby deceive...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »