Kolkata Court February 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.
Pandit Raghu Nandan Lal Sarma Vs. Madanmohan Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1915
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.333
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is a broker's suit for commission for negotiating a lease. He claims to be entitled to the sum of Rs. 2,530 as the amount agreed upon between himself and the defendant according to a note signed by the defendant, which also contained an endorsement by the defendant' attorney acting on his behalf. The note is in these terms 'Babu Raghunandan Lal Sarma--I admit that I have agreed to grant (an) 'agreement' (lease) in respect of my lands Nos. 156 and 157 Machua Bazar Street and 17 Munshi Sadaruddin Lane through you for 99 years on the condition that cash Salami Rs. 12,000 twelve thousand and monthly rent Rs. 210 two hundred and ten, besides the entire Municipal tax will have to be paid by the person taking the lands, and brokerage (I) shall pay. I shall pay Rs. 2,530 in all and nothing else after registration and, on receipt of the amount of Salami. This letter is only for 8 days, that is, from date 29th December 1913 to date 5th January 1914; after which it will be co...
Sudamdih Coal Co., Ld. Vs. Empire Coal Co., Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal942
Jenkins, C.J.1. At the time the Charter was passed the Code of Civil Procedure of 1859 was in force. The section in that Code referring to 'suits for land' was subsequently replaced by similar sections in successive codes. Section 16 of the present Code describes what was meant by 'suits for land.'2. It is submitted that the Codes subsequent to that of 1859 Varied the rule therein contained and did not enact the section in an amplified form. The mere fact that a question of title may arise for decision does not oust this Court's jurisdiction. Whether this Court hart jurisdiction or not, depends on the nature of the relief sought.Woodroffe, J.3. Can you by claiming a particular form of relief by a side-wind get this Court to determine a question of title?4. There is nothing to prevent me. The Charter does not prevent this Court from trying a suit in which an issue relating to title arises. The test is whether by means of the suit the plaintiff seeks either to acquire a right or control ...
Sudamdih Coal Company Ltd. Vs. Empire Coal Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.581
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Fletcher who has dismissed the suit with costs. This was done on a preliminary hearing upon settlement of issues, and the only question involved is whether this is a nit for land or ether immoveable property within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. That clause was intended to define the original jurisdiction of the High Court as to suits, and it empowered the Courts to receive, try and determine suits of every description, if, in the case of suits for land or other immoveable property, such land or property shall be situated...within the local limits of the ordinary 'original jurisdiction of the High Court.'2. The matter in dispute here relates to a mining property outside the jurisdiction so defined. But on behalf of the plaintiff it is contended that having regard to the pleadings it cannot be said that it is a suit for land or other immoveable property. The question is, what was intended by that ...
Parushulla Shaikh Vs. Sital Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.267
1. Defendant No. 1 and the predecessor in interest of defendants Nos. 6 and 7 owned an under-raiyati holding in equal shares. Defendant No. 1 granted a permanent sub-lease to the plaintiffs in respect of his half share on the 24th March 1908, and defendant No. 6 granted a permanent sublease of his other half, to the same party on the 13th of August 1908. The plaintiffs had, therefore, a permanent sub-lease of the entire under-raiyalt holding under the said lessors. The plaintiffs paid the salami and obtained possession. There was then a dispute and a case under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code was decided in favour of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, in whose favour defendant No. 1 sold his interest in the under-raiyat holding. The plaintiffs, therefore, brought this suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit holding that the permanent sub-leases of the plaintiffs were void under Section 85 of the Bengal Tenanc...
Ram Charan Law Vs. Fatima Begam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal933
Jenkins, C.J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a Mahomedan lady, Shabebzadi Fatima Begam, had a saleable interest in a moiety of premises known as No. 63, Dhurrumtollah Street which the plaintiff claims to have bought in execution of a mortgage decree in Suit No. 527 of 1908.2. The suit has been dismissed by Imam J., and from his judgment the plaintiff has appealed.3. The decision, of this suit depends upon whether or not this property has been validly dedicated as wakf or not. If it has, then the suit must fail.4. The dedication is said to have been effected by a document of the 16th July 1864. It is in the form of an English Indenture and is expressed to be a conveyance to Fatima Begam and Fyezuddin, their heirs representatives and assigns, of the entirety of the premises now in suit, upon trust that they the said Fatima Begam and Fyezuddin their heirs or representatives or other trustees or trustee for the time being should from time to time demise the said heredita...
Ram Charan Law Vs. Shahebzadee Fatima Begum and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.686
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a Muhammadan lady, Shahebzadee Fatima Begum, had a saleable interest in a moiety of premises known as No. 63, Dhurumtolla Street, which the plaintiff claims to have bought in execution of a mortgage-decree in Suit No. 527 of 1908. The suit has been dismissed by Imam, J., and from his judgment the plaintiff has appealed.2. The decision of this suit depends upon whether or not this property has been validly dedicated as wakf or not. If it has, then the suit must fail. The dedication is said to have been effected by a document of the 16th July 1864. It is in the form of an English indenture and is engrossed to be a conveyance to Fatima Begum and Fyezuddin, their heirs, representatives and assigns, of the entirety of the premises now in suit, upon trust that they, the said Fatima Begum and Fyenuddin, their, heirs or representatives or other trustees or trustee for the time being should, from time to time, demise the s...
Sivaprasad Ram Vs. Tricomdas Coverji Bhoja
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal926
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioners and the opposite party hold two contiguous collieries under the Maharaja, of Pachete. The Maharaja brought a suit No. 391 of 1910 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan against the opposite party for the recovery of extra royalty for coal said to have been appropriated by him by encroaching on the lands of the colliery of the petitioners, who were made pro forma defendants. The claim was based on the terms of the contract entered into by the opposite party with the Maharaja. In that suit the opposite party pleaded that the encroachment, if any, was made not by him but by his vendor who was not a party to the said suit. One of the issues in that suit was whether the opposite party had made any encroachment on the lands of the petitioners and the Court found that they had. Pending the decision of that suit the petitioners brought the present suit in the same Court against the opposite party as defendant No. 1 and his vendor as defendant No. 2...
Amrita Lal Hazra and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal957
Mookerjee and Richardson, JJ.1. Oil the 21st of November 1913, during the curly hours of the morning, in execution of a warrant issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet, a search was made of a room rented and occupied by one Sasankasekhar Hazra, alias Amrital Hazra, at 296-1, Upper Circular Road, in the eastern suburbs of Calcutta. The search warrant authorised the Commissioner of Police to search the premises for explosives, letters and documents in connection with a bomb outrage committed at Moulvi Bazar, on the 27th March 1913. At the search, the police arrested Sasaukasekliar Hazra, as also three other persons, Dinesh Chandra Das Gupta, Chandra Sekhar De, and Saroda Charan Guha, who were found asleep inside the room. The police found in the room various articles a ad papers, and amongst others a tobacco tin fitted with three iron discs (two inside and one outside) and four iron clamps, another tin of similar size, four clamps made to fit the second tin, and other discs and clamp...
Baroda Kanta Sarkar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.444
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners fill on Id not be quashed on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. The learned District Magistrate has forwarded a very long explanation from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which I do, not think we need go into. The facts relating to the present case are as follows; at any rate, these are the allegations, because nothing slated in this judgment must be deemed to be facts proved against the accused, but they are facts which will be assumed for the purposes of the present Rule. There are 12 accused in the present case who are all related to one another. The first three accused are the petitioners before us. As long ago as the year 1900, there was a civil suit instituted by the accused or some of them against one Puma Chandra Soiri, who is the father of the present complainant. That sui...
Babu Gopal Lal Vs. Kerani Gope and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.803
Coxe, J.1. This application arises out of an appeal preferred by Babu Gopal Lal, the plaintiff, against Kerani Gope and others. One of the respondents was Babu Ugra Mohan Thakur, who died on the 29th January 1914. On the 28th August 1914, the plaintiff applied that Mr. F.A. Savi, Babu Hem Chandra Mitra and Babu Suruj Mohan Thakur, a minor under the guardianship of his mother, Srimuty Sundari Debi Thakurani, should be substituted on the record as the legal representatives of the said Ugra Mohan Thakur, He obtained a Rule from this Court calling upon the opposite party; to show cause, why the substitution prayed for should not be made. Subsequently the minor's; name was expunged from the Rule at the risk of the petitioner.2. The application of the 28th August 1914 was clearly out of time, and it has been argued on behalf of the opposite party that this Rule must, therefore, be discharged. We think, however, that the application is in substance an application for an order to set aside the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›