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.
Tamijuddi Sheikh, Vs. Kumar Satya Shanker Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.101
1. In these four appeals the question we have to decide is whether an application under Order XLVII, Rule 2, for a review of a decree upon some ground other than the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or the existence of a clerical or arithmetical mistake, can be made to a Judge who signed the decree but did not write or deliver the judgment in accordance with which the decree was drawn up. In other words, the point for determination is the meaning of the expression the Judge who passed the decree' in that rule. In our opinion these words undoubtedly mean the Judge who has decided a case, and not the Judge who has merely signed a decree after satisfying himself that it has been drawn up in accordance with the judgment delivered by his predecessor.2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents that the decree is non-existent until it is signed and that, therefore, the Judge who signed the decree must be held to have passed it. Bu...
Lalljee Mahomed Vs. Dadabhai Jivanji Guzdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.807
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff, as assignee, claims Rs. 2,000, which is alleged to have been due by way of commission to Moses Judah who has died since the suit was instituted.2. The defendant being the owner of certain oil mills was anxious to sell them. They were mortgaged to a Bank for Rs. 35,000, and at the end of May or the beginning of June 1911, the mills were advertised for sale in the Exchange Gazette. On the 13th June 1911, the defendant gave Moses Judah a letter in the following terms and signed by the defendant, I agree to allow you to sell my above oil mill at Rs. 40,000 only. You will get brokerage 5 per cent, on the same when the mill will be sold through you. This condition to be in force till a fortnight (15 days) from date.' Then there were certain words which, it was agreed between the parties, were added at the time that letter was written, in Guzrati, and the correct translation was in these terms, On the sale-proceeds being received in hand,...
Sarojini Dassi and ors. Vs. Gnanendra Nath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.102
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This appeal raises questions as to the true construction of the Will of Sreenath Das, dated 13th January 1904.2. The first Clause deals with a dedication of certain property to the family idols. I do not refer to the details of the clause, as they have been already so fully discussed in the course of the argument and they appear from the Will itself.3. It has been argued, first of all, that this clause does not constitute a complete dedication of all the property to the idols, but merely created a charge on the property in favour of the idols: secondly, that there is no valid trust for religious and charitable purposes with regard to the surplus income arising from the so-called debuttar estate.4. I do not give any decision on the first point, viz., whether the clause contains a complete dedication because it was admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if the clause does contain a valid trust of the surplus, if any, for charitable purposes, the...
Golam AbdIn Sarkar and anr. Vs. Hem Chandra Mojumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.388
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether plaintiff No. 2 is entitled to have the kabuliyat executed by him, while he was a minor, declared void so far as he is concerned and to recover possession of his share in the property in dispute. The Court of Appeal below has decided this question in his favour and the defendants have appealed to this Court. It appears that the plaintiff's mother obtained certificate of guardianship in respect of his person and property, and the plaintiff, therefore, was a minor until he attained the age of twenty-one years. The conveyance was executed by him when he had not attained that age. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the conveyance was void. See the case of Mohori Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose 30 C. 539; 5 Bom. L.R. 421; 7 C.W.N. 441 (P.C.); 30 I.A. 114.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the minor is estopped from pleading invalidity of the kabuliyat under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. The lower Court has found that t...
Rameswari Chaudhurani Vs. K.B. Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.685
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Chaudhuri which was made on the 26th of April 1915, where by he gave leave to the Receiver, Mr. Dutt, to settle a claim of the estate against a man named Mr. Manuk for Rs. 15,800. A letter was sent to the Receiver on the 1st of May by the executors saying that they were going to appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Chaudhuri, and asking the Receiver not to take any steps in respect of that order until the appeal was heard. We were at first told that there was no answer to this letter, which was a mistake for it appeared that an answer had been sent on the following day, the 2nd of May. A part of the answer has been read out to us by Mr. Chuckerbutty, and it was obviously to the effect that the Receiver could not be bound by the terms of the letter and that if the executors wanted to stay the proceedings they must take the necessary steps by applying to the Court. The Receiver also gave notice in that letter tha...
Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi Bahadur Vs. Srimati Durga Sundari Dasy ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.185
1. Three questions are involved in these four appeals. The first is whether the defendant-respondent is bound to pay the full rent reserved in the kabuliat's executed by her predecessor-in-title in favour of the zemindar now represented by the plaintiff-appellant; secondly, whether the defendant is bound to pay rent by 11 instalments as stipulated in the kabuliats; and thirdly, whether apart from any stipulation in the kabuliats the defendant's rent is liable to enhancement up to the limit of the customary rate if she is found to be a tenure-holder.2. The kabuliats in Second Appeals Nos. 2993 and 3005 were for the term of one year each and were unregistered, and the kabuliats in Nos. 3003 and 3004 were for five years each and were registered, the first two were executed in the year 1275 B.S. and the last two in the year 1280 B.S.3. It appears that before the kabuliats of 1275 were executed, the zemindar applied to the Collector for measurement of the lands of the tenants under Section ...
Kalis Chandra Saha and anr. Vs. Darbaria Sheik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.251
1. These appeals arise out of suits for rent based upon certain kabulyats. The kabulyats in three of the cases were for the term of one year and the kabulyats in the remaining two cases were for three years each. Certain rent was settled in each case but a portion was deducted as hajat kept in suspense and the balance was stated to be the rent payable for the term. It was stipulated, however, in the kabulyats that on the expiry of the term the tenant would take a fresh settlement and if he continued in occupation without taking any fresh settlement, the amount of hajat would not be allowed. The plaintiff in these suits has claimed rent at the full rate. The Court of first instance gave a decree for rent at the full rate, but on appeal the learned District Judge held that plaintiff was entitled to recover rent only at the reduced rate. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.2. Now the defendant is not an occupancy raiyat. The case of Srimati Mohamaya Kar v. Kishore Chang 21 Ind. Cas. ...
Shiba Durga Debi Vs. Gopi Mohan Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.180
1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned District Judge, dated the 11th February 1915, by which he dismissed an appeal from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dated the 17th June 1914. The matter arises out of a proceeding taken in execution of a decree upon a mortgage and the point involved is one of limitation.2. It appears that on the 10th March 1896, a decree was made by consent providing for the payment of the amount due by the judgment-debtor in instalments. The condition was annexed that if default were made in the payment of two consecutive instalments, the decree-holder (the respondent before us) should be at liberty 'to realise the entire amount due on account of all the kists past and future by serving proclamation of sale and by selling at auction the mortgaged properties mentioned in the present decree.' Then there is this provision: 'And if the plaintiff's dues are not fully satisfied by the price fetched by the sale, the plaintiff shall be entitled to ...
The East Indian Railway Company Vs. Ram Autar Son of Jhari Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1915
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.502
1. The firm of Putidas Mahadeo Lal consigned 10 tins of cocoanut oil at the Howrah station of the East Indian Railway Company for carriage to the plaintiff at the Patwa station on the 3rd of December 1913. The consignment did not reach the plaintiff and he gave notice of demand of compensation to the Claims Superintendent ,of the Company at Howrah on the 25th. of December 1913. He gave a notice to the: Agent on the 10th of August, 1914, but the said notice was refused. This suit was then filed on the 2nd of- January 1915 claiming compensation for the loss of the goods, alleging that the said loss was due to the wilful negligence of the servants of the Company or to theft by its servants. The Company replied that the suit was incompetent as no notice had been served on the Agent as required by law; that the suit was barred by limitation; that the Company was not liable as the loss was due to a train robbery.2. The learned Judge below held that the plea of a train robbery was not made ou...
Krishna Govinda Pal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.306
Holmwood, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Tipperah who, agreeing with the Assessors, found the appellant Krishna Gobinda Pal guilty of an offence under Section 471 read with Section 466, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. It appears that a document of the year 1862 was entered in the register book of the Registration Office at Comilla, Volume I, Book 3, purporting to be a mokurari lease for 50 years in favour of the grandfather of the accused Girish Chandra Roy, who has been acquitted, coupled with an agreement to make the lease permanent on the expiry of 50 years, that is, from the year 1319. A copy of this document was obtained from the Registration Office and filed in a proceeding under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. We do not know what the meaning of the filing the document in such a proceeding is, but the evidence, which is very conflicting, comes from persons who were called up...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »