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.
Jagannath Rahatgir Vs. Pandit Deokinandan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.671
1. In this case the Magistrate, in refusing to admit in evidence the alleged agreement of service of the accused, Pandit Deokinandan, was clearly in error. It was optional to him under Section 33 of the Stamp Act to examine or impound the instrument if it appeared to be insufficiently stamped. But the prohibition contained in the first part of Section 35 that no instrument chargeable with duty shall Be admitted in evidence for any purpose or acted upon unless it be duly stamped, does not apply to proceedings in a Criminal Court [see proviso (d) to that section]. The Magistrate, therefore, ought to have taken that document into consideration and come to a finding upon it. With regard to conversion, the opinion of the Magistrate is not correct. It is clear that a servant can be charged with criminal breach of trust under Section 405, Indian Penal Code. If in this case it is proved that the two accused (or either of them) were in fact entrusted with the property an servants and now wet up...
Nabendra Kishore Roy and ors. Vs. Srimati Rahima Banu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.695
1. The plaintiffs-appellants as purchasers of an entire estate at a sale for arrears of Government revenue, known as the 4-annas bahali hissya pargana Darra, sued to recover possession of the lands in dispute as appertaining to the said estate. The defence was that the lands did not belong to the estate purchased by the plaintiffs, but to another hissya (the 3-annas 1-kurant hissya) in that pargana, and was part of a taluk which was existing from before the Permanent Settlement. The Commissioner who was appointed to make a local investigation found that, according to the thak map, some of the lands formed part of the estate purchased by the plaintiffs, but that according to certain chittas of the year 1844, the lands appertained to 3-annas and odd gandas-zamindari. The Court of first instance preferred the thak map to the chittas, on the ground that the chittas were prepared by the Government in its capacity as the fractional zemindar of the pargana in order to ascertain the lands belo...
Shashi Bhusan Hazrah Vs. Sheikh Esabar (Esrar) Ali Nazir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.122
Fletcher, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the defendant, who is the darpatnidar of a certain mouzah, called Nagarpore, of which his father obtained a darpatni settlement on the 13th April 1899. The plaintiffs in these cases are the various tenants in the mouzah. The rights that the plaintiffs allege they have in the lands are either that their lands are lakheraj, or, in two cases, I think, that they are held at fixed rents. The only objection that has been raised before us is as to whether the Civil Conrt had jurisdiction to hear and determine these suits. Proceedings were commenced on the 27th July 1901 by the father of the defendant to baye a Record of Rights prepared and that being done, the record was finally published on the 9th July 1903, and the lands of the plaintiffs in those suits were all recorded as mal lands. The defendant's father then applied under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for assessment of fair and equitable rents of the lands. Objections were raised by...
Ram Chandra Marwari Vs. Gopi Nath Chowdhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.251
Coxe, J.1. In this case the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 came to an agreement in a former suit that certain property should be given to the latter for her maintenance, but that she should not be able to alienate it. She has alienated it to the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs accordingly have brought this suit to recover possession.2. The suit has been decreed by the Courts below and the defendant No. 1 appeals. It its contended on his behalf that the restriction on the defendant No. 2's right to alienate the property is contrary to Sections 10 and 12 of the Transfer of Property Act.3. It appears to me that this contention must succeed. The propertj transferred to the defendant No. 2 appears to have been a life-interest. That, however, is just as much property as an absolute interest, and any condition absolutely restraining the transferee from disposing of that interest is, in my opinion, void.4. The lower Court has relied on the case of Kuldip Singh v. Khetrani Koer 25 C. 869;...
Krishna Bar Vs. Srimati Ranamoyi Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.120
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the defendant-appellant calling on the plaintiff-respondent to show cause why a review of judgment shculd not be granted. The only question involved in the appeal was whether an application for an order absolute for sale of a decree in a mortgage suit, dated the 28th of September 1898, was barred by limitation. Following the decisions of this Court on appeals from Courts subordinate thereto we held, as we were bound to hold, that no period of limitation applied to such an application and that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, had not taken any vested right that the plaintiff had. On the original side of the Court a different view has been taken, namely, that an application for an order absolute for sale in a mortgage suit is a proceeding in execution and must be made within the time prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act: Amolak Chand Parak v. Sharat Chunder Mukerjee Q.B. 433 : 7 B. & S. 447 : 35 L.J.Q.B. 145 : 12 Jur. (N.S.) 619 : 14 L.T. 35...
Hanuman Prasad Thakur Vs. Jadunandan Thakur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.787
Coxe, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain land that was sold in execution of a decree against one Harnandan Thakur in May 1900. It was purchased ostensibly by the defendant, Jadu Nandan Thakur. The plaintiff is the heir of one Rajbati, the sister of Jadunandan, and his case is that Jadunandan, purchased the property with Rajbati's money and on her behalf, and that she remained in possession till her death in January 1906, since when the defendants are in possession. The 2nd defendant is said to have purchased a portion of the property from Jadurandan in June 1904, in full knowledge that Jadunandan was merely a farzidar. The defence isthat Jadunandan bought the property himself.2. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit, holding that it is barred by Section 66 of the Code, and also that Jadunandan was the real purchaser. The plaintiff appeals.3. Against Shia Thakur, the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff has, in my opinion, no case whatever. There ...
Brojendra Lall Dass Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn Khanna and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.149
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 31st March 1913, rejecting an application. The application that was before the learned Judge was an application under Section 145, Code of Civil Procedure, for the execution of a decree against an alleged surety, Lakshmi Narain Khanna, by the sale of two Government promissory notes which, it is said, he had deposited as security for the decretal amount. The judgment-debtor is the son-in-law of the said Lakshmi Narain Khanna and a warrant for his arrest having been issued, Lakshmi Narain Khanna appeared before the first Munsif of Burdwan and threw on the table before him, according to the evidence, two Government promissory notes for Rs. 1,000 each, which he wished the Court to take as security for the decretal amount which had been found due against his son-in-law and to stay further proceedings in execution pending an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The learned Munsif ref...
Safar Ali and ors. Vs. Mohesh Lal Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.956
Coxe, J.1. The land in suit in this case originally belonged to one Bado Mondol. He died leaving three sons, Kalu, Talewar and Akal. It has been found that they succeeded to equal shares in the property and that the shares of Talewar and Akal have come to the plaintiffs, although within these shares there is one share, namely, one-sixth which the defendants held as under-tenants. The share of Kalu has come to the defendants.2. The defendants appeal and on their behalf it is argued that the plaintiffs' title has not been proved to the one-third share of Talewar.3. This contention, in ray opinion, must succeed. It is proved that the share of Talewar came ultimately to Giridhari Lal and it is said that he sold it to the plaintiffs by a registered deed. That deed, however, is not produced and so far as we know, no foundation has been laid for the admission of any secondary evidence with respect to it. It appears to me, therefore, that no evidence of that sale can be adduced under Section 9...
Kali Churn Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Mohananda Datta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.467
1. This is an appeal by the second and third defendants in a suit for partition of joint property. The land in dispute is comprised in an estate held by the fourth and fifth defendants as proprietors. On the 27th February 1894, the proprietors granted a lease to the third defendant, apparently for the benefit of himself and his brothers, the first two defendants. On the 31st August 1904 the fourth defendant gave a lease to the first three defendants in respect of his half share. This lease, it has been alleged, was granted for building purposes. On the 21st February 1905, the fifth defendant granted a putni to the first three defendants in respect of the half share held by him as proprietor. On the 6th December 1909, the fourth defendant granted a similar putni to the plaintiffs in respect of his half share. The putni leases, it has not been disputed, were superior to the leases previously granted by the proprietors. On the 2nd June 1910 the plaintiffs commenced the present suit for pa...
Akhil Chandra Shaha and ors. Vs. India General Navigation and Railway ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.260
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for damages. On the 7th April 1910, the plaintiffs made over to the defendants, who are common carriers, sixty bags of sugar for carriage from Calcutta to Jhalakati. The goods were received in the ordinary course of business and were placed on a flotilla for conveyance to the place of destination. On the 12th April, between 2-30 and 3 in the morning the flat, which carried the goods, struck a snag; the vessel thus sprang a leak and the sugar in the bags was spoiled by the water. The plaintiffs accordingly claim as damages the price of the sugar. The defendants plead non-liability by virtue of the condition printed on the back of the forwarding note. The Munsif decreed the suit, but on appeal the District Judge has dismissed it. On behalf of the plaintiffs the decision of the District Judge has been assailed as erroneous in law, and reference has been made to the provisions of the Indian Carriers Act, 1865, and to judicial decisions there...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »