Kolkata Court April 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.
Shyama Charan Baisya Vs. Prafulla Sundari Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.161
1. This appeal is directed against an order of dismissal of an application for revocation of Probate of an alleged Will of one Raj Chandra Uaisya. The testator died on the 25th April 1899, and is said to have made a testamentary disposition of his properties on the 18th April 1899. He left a widow, Anandamayi, and his nearest male relation alive at the time of his death was the appellant, Shyama Charan Baisya, who would consequently be entitled to succeed as reversionary heir on her death. The Will authorised the widow to take a son in adoption and constituted her absolute owner of the estate, if she did not exercise her power of adoption. There were also two legacies, one in favour of Giris Chandra Bhattacharyya, the spiritual guide of the testator, the other in favour of Karunamayi, the daughter of the appellant and the wife of the brother of Anandamayi. No application for Probate was made till the 4th August 1902, more than three years after the death of the tesiator. In this applic...
Rama Nath Chakravarti Vs. the Collector of Khulna and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.682
1. This appeal arises out of an application for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed of one Mati Moyi Debya. The Will purported to give away all the properties in the possession of the testatrix, being her own self-acquired property as well as the property inherited by her from her husband. At first the application was filed before the District Delegate and upon an objection being made by one Sarba Sundari, the case was sent up to the District Court and taken up as a contested case. In the meantime the Chairman of the Debhatta Municipality is said to have made a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Babu A.N. Sen, that the Will of which Probate had been asked for by Rama Nath Chakraburty was a forged one. Upon that information the Sub-Divisional Officer took some proceeding which he headed as confidential and examined certain witnesses, and then sent the record to the Collector asking him to oppose the grant of the Probate. It is not quite clear under what law this proceedin...
Ananga Mohun Chakraverty and anr. Vs. Bejoy Chandra Dutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.491
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution. The plaintiffs and some of the defendants were co-sharers in a jote the rent of which was in arrears. Some of the co-sharer landlords obtained a decree for arrears of rent and attached the properties of the plaintiffs alone, whereupon the plaintiffs deposited the decretal, amount in order to save their properties.' They now sued the defendants for the proportionate share payable by them.2. The Court of first instance held that the defendant No. 1 was the real owner of a certain share in the jote and that his wife, the defendant No. 2, was merely a benamidar for her husband and accordingly gave a decree against the defendant No. 1 alone. The defendant No. 1 appealed to the lower Appellate Court, urging that it was not he but his wife, the defendant No. 2, who was the real owner of the share and that he, therefore, was not liable for any share of the rent. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the defendant No. 2 was the real o...
Hira Lal Pal Vs. Etbar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.866
Richardson, J.1. On consideration we are of opinion that there is no sufficient reason for our interference. The point which was taken at the hearing was that the learned Subordinate Judge in the Court of Appeal below was wrong in treating the decision of his predecessor upon issues Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit as final so far as he was concerned and in refusing to re-consider those issues upon the evidence for the purpose of arriving at an independent determination in regard to them. Issues Nos. 3 and 4 relate to the merits of the dispute between the parties and what happened was this. The first Court originally decided those issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit without deciding the remaining issues Nos. 1 and 2, which raised separate questions of limitation and misjoinder. Upon appeal the then Subordinate Judge in a judgment, dated the 31st May 1910, found in the plaintiff's favour upon issues Nos. 3 and 4 and remanded the suit to the first Court with the direction that th...
Babu Ram Sumnun Prosad Vs. Genda Lal Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.841
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff for declaration of title to land and for recovery of possession thereof. The property in dispute admittedly belonged to a family of Jhas, now represented by the defendants second party. In 1881 the Jhas mortgaged the property to Manoji Narain Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the first party defendant. The mortgagee sued in due course, obtained a decree, and at the sale which followed thereon purchased the mortgaged property on the 27th July 1891. The saje was confirmed on the 26th September 1891. There was some delay in the issue of the certificate of sale, which was not granted till the 26th April 1892. Symbolical possession was thereafter delivered to the purchaser on the 4th February 1894. Meanwhile, on the 28th March 1892 the purchaser included the property in a mortgage executed by him in favour of one Barhamdeo Prosad, now represented by the plaintiff. A decree was obtained on this mortgage on the 29th April 1897 and at the execution sal...
Ram Dutt Ramkissen Dass Vs. E.D. Sassoon and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.938
Chaudhuri, J.1. By a contract dated the 2nd March 1914 the plaintiffs sold to the defendant firm 500 bales of what is known as (B D)/G 2 jute. The jute was to be placed alongside exporting vessel at once. The contract form used is that of the Baled Jute Association. It purports to be the form approved by the Association dated the 30th June 1909, as appears on the form itself. In addition to the printed terms in the contract form there is a clause in writing to this effect 'weight, condition and quality guaranteed by sellers at port of destination as substitute for (S C)/(C) B grade under the terms and conditions of London Association Contract, 1913. Any short weight to be paid by sellers and any overweight to be refunded by buyers.' One of the terms of the contract in suit is (clause 14), 'cash on delivery of Mate's or Dock receipts.' It appears that according to the shipping instructions of the defendant firm dated the 3rd March, the plaintiffs placed the goods alongside exporting ves...
Janab Ali Mia and ors. Vs. NazamaddIn Pradhania and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.871
Walmsley, J.1. The principal question in appeal relates to the Muhammadan Law of fosterage. The necessary facts are as follows. The defendant No. 3, Newaz Ali, had a son born to him named Janab Ali, defendant No. 1. A few years later, Newaz Ali's wife, the mother of Janab Ali, took charge of Zohara Banu, defendant No. 2, and suckled her. Zohara Banu was then an infant in arms: the lower Courts have not found exactly what her age was when Newaz Ali's wife began to suckle her, but they have found that she had not been weaned and that she was suckled by the woman, which I regard as a finding that she was certainly less than two years and a half. Subsequently Newaz Ali, as certificated guardian of Zohara Banu, gave her in marriage to his son, Janab Ali. The lower Courts have held that such a marriage was unlawful, because by the law of fosterage the two children were prohibited from marrying.2. The appellant, Newaz Ali, contends that the lower Appellate Court has misunderstood the authorit...
Bonomali Banikya Vs. Joy Kumar Baidya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.673
1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts are these: One Rajdhar Shaha obtained a mortgage-decree against the appellant and some other persons in Suit No. 1124 of 1903 on the 22nd February 1904. Rajdhar having died, his widow Bidya Sundari obtained the final decree in the mortgage suit on the 20th March 1906. She executed the decree in 1907. Then she transferred the decree to certain persons from whom the present respondents purchased it on the 16th March 1910. On the 3rd May If 10, the respondents applied for execution of the decree in Execution Case No. 314 of 1910. No notice under Order XXI, Rule 16, was issued or served upon the decree-holders or the judgment-debtors, but, on 2nd June 1910 a notice under Order XXI, Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, was served upon the judgment-debtors, and on the next the 18th September 1912, the appellant applied under Order IX, Rule 13, to set aside the ex part decree. The application was ...
Moheswar Panda and ors. Vs. Sundar NaraIn Pattanaik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.342
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Midnapore, dated the 19th August 1912, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Contai. The points which have been raised in the appeal concern only the manner in which the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court dealt with certain portions of the documentary evidence that had been admitted by the Munsif.2. The first document which has been dealt with in this appeal is a partition decree (Exhibit B), that is, a decree in a partition suit between the first defendant and his brothers. The learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court remarks that the partition decree is hardly admissible in evidence. The qualification of the word admissible' by hardly' shows that the learned Judge did not reject that evidence altogether. That appears to be clear from the rest of the judgment where he proceeds to an analytical examination of the decree. It is stated that the learned Judge is wrong. We have not got ...
Akbar Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Syed Abbas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.164
1. These appeals are preferred by the tenants-defendants. The landlord-respondent instituted cases against them under Section 105 of the Tenancy Act asking that their rent should be increased under Sections 31, 82, 33 and 52. When the three cases came on for trial the landlord withdrew his claims under Sections 31 and 52, and gave no evidence regarding improvements. The question that remained between the parties was whether the rents were liable to enhancements, for the tenants asserted that they held at fixed rates. The learned Special Judge has found that they did not hold at fixed rates, and has upheld the enhancement allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The defendants prefer these second appeals. A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the landlord-respondent that no appeal lies, but having regard to the cases of Pirthi Chand Lal Chowdhury v. Basarat Ali 3 Ind. Cas. 449; 10 C.L.J. 343; 13 C.W.N. 1149; 37 C. 30 and Bisseswar Ray v. Rajendra Kumar Singha 25 Ind. Cas. 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »