Kolkata Court March 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 Rameshwar Malia and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Jiu Thakur, by His Shebait, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.337
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 9 and 13 against the judgment of the learned Subirdinate Judge of Bankura dated the 21st September 1911.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, an idol, through his shebait to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint, on the ground that they formed part of the debuttar estate of the idol and that a putni settlement, dated the 29th of Baisakh 1261, granted by a former shebait in favour of the predecessors of the defendants Nos. 1 to 13 was invalid.3. On the present appeal it was not argued by the appellants that the idol had no interest in the properties in suit. Having regard to the evidence which has been considered at great length by the learned Subordinate Judge, it is clear that the endowment is an ancient one. It was, however, argued before us, though somewhat faintly, that the properties were the private property of the shebait, subject nevertheless to a charge for the maintenance of the worship of the ...
Biswessor Sen and anr. Vs. Imamudii Chowdhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.833
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit to recover khas possession of some land. The Court of first instance held that the suit was not barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, held that it was barred by limitation. The matter turns upon the question whether the law applicable to the case is the present Limitation Act or the Act of 1877. The argument of the lower Appellate Court is that according to the old Limitation Act, the defendants' possession became adverse to the plaintiff from the date of the sale and that, therefore, when the suit was instituted more than twelve years had already expired. So that the defendant's title by adverse possession was complete. The plaintiff contends that he is entitled to the benefit of the new Act and he quotes in support of his view the case of Lala Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal 19 Ind. Cas. 291 : 17 C.L.J. 488 : 17 C.W.N. 605 : 11 A.L.J. 389 : 13 M.L.T. 437; (1913) M.W.N. 470 : 15 Bom. L.R. 489 : 25 M.L.J. 131 : 35 A. 227 (P.C...
Ali Haffiz Vs. Abdur Rahaman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal1135
Greaves, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs claim to remove defendant No. 1 from the mutawalliship on the ground that he has committed, a breach of trust by alienating a part of the trust property to defendant No. 2 who is alleged to have taken the property with the knowledge that it wan trust property. Defendant No. 2 alleges that the property alienated is not trust property and that in any ease he had no knowledge of any trust. A preliminary objection was taken, on behalf of defendant No. 2 that he is not a necessary party and that he cannot be joined in the suit which is one under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. In support of this objection two cases are relied on, namely, Budh Singh Dhudhuria v. Niradbaran Roy (1915) 2 C. L. J. 431, 434. and Badri Dass Mukim v. (sic)Chooni Lal Johurry (1906) I.L.R. 33 Calc. 789, 805. With regard to both cases I am quite in agreement with them in so far as they decide that relief such as is asked here against defendant No 2, does not come with...
Ali Haffiz and ors. Vs. Abdur Rahman and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.801
Greaves, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs claim to remove defendant No. 1 from the mutwalliship, on the ground that he has committed a breach of trust by alienating a part of the trust property to defendant No. 2, who is alleged to have taken the property with the knowledge that it was trust property. Defendant No. 2 alleges that the property alienated is not trust property and that in any case he had no knowledge of any trust. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of defendant No. 2 that he is not a necessary party and that he cannot be joined in the suit, which is one under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. In support of this objection two cases are relied on, namely, Budh Singh, Dudhuria v. Niradharan Roy 2 C.L.J. 421 at p. 434 and Budree Das Mukim v. Chooni Lal Johurry 33 C. 789 at p. 805; 10 C.W.N. 581. With regard to both cases I am quite in agreement with them in so far as they decide that relief such as is asked here against defendant No. 2, does not come within the...
Udit NaraIn Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Mathura Prasad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.413
Sharfuddin, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Darbhanga, dated the 1st September 1910.2. The learned District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff and hence the present appeal by the defendants. In order to understand the grounds urged against the judgment of the lower Court, it is necessary to refer to certain facts antecedent to the institution of the present suit.3. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs, 10,243-6-0, principal and interest on a registered mortgage bond dated the 27th February 1902 executed by the defendant No. 1, Udit Narain Choudhury, as head and manager of a Hindu joint family of which the other defendants are members.4. The plaintiff's mother, Musammat Moharani Bibi, inherited the property of her father, Brij Bhukhan Lal. While she was ill possession of the property, she sold a share in Mouza Mohammadpore Bowari in 1884 to Nena Choudhury, father of Udit Narain. All the time the members of Nena's family were joint, but ...
Damoda Coal Company Limited Vs. Hurmook Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.697
1. This is an appeal from a Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 17th August 1912, reversing the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought to recover rent due on a lease. The defence was that the lease had come to an end. The lease was a lease of a colliery and the defendants alleged that the property Wad been destroyed by fire or other irresistible force, and that they had by notice avoided the lease. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court made findings of fact that are in favour of the defendants. He, however, found that the notice purporting to avoid the lease did not satisfy the terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and that, therefore, the lease had not been validly determined.2. The learned Judge was obviously in error in the view he took. The notice under Section 106 has nothing to do with the notice to avoid a lease under Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice avoiding a lease under Section 108(e) does not...
Ram Sarup Bhagat Vs. Bansi Mandar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal742
Sharfuddin and Coxe, J.J.1. This is a reference by the Munsif of Banka, under Order XL VI, rule I of the Civil procedure Code, for a decision whether a certain bond is enforceable at law. It appears to us that it is not so enforceable. It binds down the executant to daily attendance and manual labour until a certain sum is repaid in a certain month and penalises defanlt with overwhelming interest. It is remarkable that the suit, which is brought on this bond, is not contested, and this, in the Munsif's opinion, is probably due to the fact that the executor is too poor to defend himself. Such a condition is indistinguishable from slavery, and such a contract is, in our opinion, opposed to public policy and not enforceable....
Gurai Kar and ors. Vs. Srimati Rani Kuarmoni Singha Mandhata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.312
1. These are appeals by the plaintiffs. The suits rwere brought under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for declarations that the tenants had the right to cut and appropriate trees. The Assistant Settlement Officer decreed the suits. The landlord appealed. The District Judge, in the course of his judgment, came to a finding that the custom had been established, but that it was unreasonable in so far as it permitted the appropriation of timber trees. By an oversight, however, the learned Judge recorded an order dismissing the landlord's appeal thus preserving the judgment of the Assistant Settlement Officer-intact. Upon an ex parts application by the landlord, the learned Judge amended his judgment and converted his order dismissing the appeal into an order directing that the decree of the Assistant Settlement Officer should be modified, in accordance with his finding that the custom should not be upheld so far as timber trees are concerned. The tenants, thereupon, appealed to this ...
Puncha Thakur and anr. Vs. Bindesri Thakur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.675
Sharfuddin, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of a 3-annas share in the offerings made to the temple of Sri Bhairo Nath on establishment of their title thereto. The plaintiffs and the defendant third party form a joint Hindu family. It is alleged that out of the 16-annas offerings, they owned and possessed a 3-annas share and to that extent they used to get charhawa(offering's) offered by the people. The defendant second party, it appears, in execution of a decree put up that share to sale and himself purchased it. Thereafter he sold it to the defendant first party. The defendant third party, father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4, and the father of plaintiff No. 5 had executed a mortgage-bond with respect to the above share in favour of the defendant second party and it was in execution of the mortgage-decree obtained on the strength of the above mortgage that the defendant No. 2 sold and purchased that share whi...
Jnanendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. Chandi Charan Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.480
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiff is the licensee of a country liquor shop. His son is the licensee of an imported liquor shop. He brought a suit against the defendant, now appellant, for accounts alleging that the defendant was his servant or karmachari. In the alternative he asked that if the defendant was found to be a partner, the partnership should be dissolved and an account in respect of the partnership taken.2. The defendant appeared and said that he was a partner, and the learned Munsif found that he was a partner to the extent of 8 annas and he passed a decree accordingly.3. Then the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Judge and the learned Judge held that the defendant could not be a partner, because the license of a liquor shop is a personal privilege and the licensee cannot take any one as a partner into the business. He also held that as the license for the imported liquor shop stood in the name of plaintiff's son, the plaintiff could proceed with the suit only with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »