Kolkata Court March 1915 Judgments
Ahid Khondkar Vs. Mahendra Lal De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal830
Jenkins, C.J.1. Did the lower Appellate Court proceed on the merits?2. Yes. In this Court Mr. Justice N. R. Chatterjea has upheld the action of the lower Appellate Court. But Section 629 of the old Code of Civil Procedure allows an appeal only when the review is granted, one of the grounds being that it was granted in contravention of the provisions of Section 626. According to Mr. Justice N. R. Chatterje's decision there would be an appeal in every case of review on the ground that the allegations had not been strictly proved. [Reads Sections 624, 626 and 629 and comments thereon.] In the present case the court of first instance when granting the review has acted according to the provisions of Section 626, in that it was satisfied that there was strict proof of the allegations made in the application for review and this finding was no doubt arrived at upon the evidence produced into proof of the allegations. I submit that the Appellate Court could not enter into the sufficiency of the...
Tag this Judgment!Abed Khondkar and ors. Vs. Mohendra Lal De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.282
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Nalini Rinjin Chatterjea, before whom the case came by way of appeal from an appellate decree. The question that arises is as to the competence of an Appellate Court to question the propriety of a review granted by the Court of first instance, on the ground that the evidence in support of the application should not have been believed.2. This suit is one for rent, and in the first instance it was decided adversely to the defendants contention. The defendants, as a result of what appeared in the course of the trial, became aware of some new and important matter or evidence and as a result of that made an application to the Court of first instance for a review. The review was granted, because it appeared to the Court that there was strict proof of the allegation of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence not within the knowledge of the applicants and because that s rict proof c...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Ghafoor Miah Vs. Haji Khundakar Altaf HosaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.423
1. Musammat, Atibunnissa and her husband, Hossein Ali, jointly executed a deed of wakf on the 4th of Sravan 1270. Certain properties mentioned in schedule ka to the plaint were the subject of dedication. Under this deed Hossein Ali was to be mutwalli for his life and Atibunnissa after him for her life. After their death without children the nearest relative, who was also dianutdar or honest, was to succeed as mutwalh, but on his death the successor would bo not necessarily his heir-at-law but one amongst the near relatives of the dedicators who was dianutdar.2. Hossein Ali died in 1279 and in 1282 Atibunnessa executed another deed of wakf in respect of the properties in schedule kha and additional properties in schedule kha. This towliaknama was revoked and in 1284, 1289, 1291, 1297, she executed different towliatnartias, but none of them came into operation and she continued to act as mutawalli until 1894, when she executed three documents one after another in favour of Abdul Gafoor, ...
Tag this Judgment!Taher Mondal Vs. Tarafdi Gharami and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.923
Sharfuddin, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of 24-Parganas, dated the 12th May 1913, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Munsif of Basirhat, dated the 30th April 1912.2. The plaintiff's Suit against the respondents is for recovery of khas possession of certain lands by ejectment, on the ground that his tenant, defendant No. 2, in collusion with the defendant No. 1, allowed the latter to encroach upon the lands of the tenancy at the time of the re-excavation of a tank and further on the ground that he made an exchange of some lands of the tenancy With the defendant No. 1 in contravention of the terms of the kabuliyat. The present suit, it is alleged, was instituted on the refusal by the defendant No. 2 to pay compensation.3. The defence of the defendant No. 2 is a denial of the allegations in the plaint and also that the Suit is barred by limitation.4. The Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff holding that the suit was not ba...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Sir Salimullah Bahadur and ors. Vs. Rahenuddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.68
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title to land and for recovery of possession thereof. The plaintiffs are the superior landlords of a nim osut taluk. The talukdars defaulted to pay rent, with the result that they were sued and a rent-decree was obtained against them on the 7th April 1909. On the 5th August 1909, the plaintiffs applied to execute the decree in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act; five days later, an order was made for the simultaneous issue of the writ of attachment and the sale proclamation under Sub-section (1) of Section 16H. The sale was held under Sub-section (1) of Section 164 on the 23rd September, when the decree-holders themselves purchased the defaulting tenure. The sale was confirmed in due course and symbolical delivery was made to the purchasers. They could not, however, obtain actual possession of the land, as they were resisted by the defendants who set up under-tenures in the property sold. The plai...
Tag this Judgment!Kumud Kumar Bose and ors. Vs. Hari Mohan Samadar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.45a
1. In this case, the District Judge has refused to entertain an appeal a against an order by which the Court of first omstamce dismissed for default an application to set aside an ex parte decree in a mortgage suit. The petitioner, who was the defendant in that suit, applied to have the ex parte decree set aside. The application was fixed for disposal on; the 7th November 1914. On that date an application was made on his behalf for adjournment. The Court held that the application was frivolous and refused to grant time; thereupon, the Pleader intimated to the Court that he had no further instructions. The application was accordingly dismissed for default. The petitioner then appealed to the District Judge; the result was that the following order was recorded: 'No appeal lies; summarily dismissed,' It is clear that under Clause (d) of Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the Code, the appeal was competent. The order assailed by way of appeal was an order under Rule 13 ofOrder IX; it was immaterial ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajab Ali and ors. Vs. Dina Nath Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.261
1. The appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nikhrannessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.918
1. This appeal arises out of a suit under the Guardians and Wards Act. The appellant who is the mother of two minor sons was appointed a guardian under this Act. When the eldest son became 16 years of age, she made an application to the District Judge at Alipore that she was going to get her two sons married at an expense of Rs. 4,000 and she wanted her application to be filed as of record, and this was done. She did not in this application say that Rs. 4 000 would be spent out of the minors' estate and that being so, it is not open to her now to say that she spent Rs. 4,000 out of the minors' estate. Thereafter she made an application to the learned Judge that a sum of about Rs. 3,000 was required for the repairs of the minors' house and something for paying their debts. She then applied for permission to sell certain property of the minors in the District of Patna yielding an annual income of Rs. 15 at a price of Rs. 4.000. Sanction was riven and then she sold the shares of the minor...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Rukmini Koeri Vs. Nilmani Bandyopadhyaya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.170
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage-bond executed by a pardanashin lady. The signature on the document is admitted, but the lady says it was not explained to her. That it was explained to her, is proved by her husband whom we have examined and also by the witnesses for the plaintiff. The receipt of the consideration is also proved. The objection mainly pressed by learned Counsel on her behalf is that the document has not been duly attested in accordance with law. He relies on the recent decision of the Privy Council in the case of Shamu Patter v. Abdul Kadir. 16 Ind. Cas. 250; 23 M.L.J. 321; 12 M.L.T. 338; (1912) M.W.N. 935; 10 A.L.S. 259; 14 Bom. L.R. 1034; 35 M. 607; 16 C.L.J. 596; 39 I.A. 218; 16 C.W.N. 1009 (P.C.) which confirms the decision of the Madras High Court Shamu Patter v. Abdul Kadir 31 M. 215; 3 M.L.T. 300; 18 M.L.J.. The learned Judges of the Madras High Court held that a mortgage-deed is attested by witnesses within the meaning of Section 59 of the Transf...
Tag this Judgment!Dina Nath Nag and ors. Vs. Sashi Mohan Dey Tarafdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.16
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in an action in ejectment. The plaintiff seeks to eject the defendants on the ground that they were tenants of the disputed land and that their tenancy has been terminated by service of notice to quit under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The Courts below have decreed the suit. Upon appeal to this Court, the defendants have contended that they are raiyats and cannot be ejected except in conformity with the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This contention is based on a two fold ground, namely, first, that the disputed land is the homestead of the defendants, governed by the provisions of Section 182 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; and secondly, that if the land is not their homestead, it is held by them as raiyats and for agricultural purposes. It may be premised here that the defendants hold as raiyats parcels of land in the neighbourhood; those parcels, however, lie in a different village and are held by them under a landlord othe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »