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.
Prosonno Kumar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Kulada Prosad Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.472
1. These are appeals by the defendants against the judgments of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 22nd May 1911. The suit was brought by the landlords to recover possession of a certain property held by the defendants, on the ground that the tenants have successfully and without reasonable and probable cause denied the landlords' title in a certain rent suit. The only question is, do the tenants incur forfeiture by their doing so? The argument in this case has been based upon Section 186A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. To whatever class of cases Section 186A may apply it does not apply to this case because no damages have been awarded. Therefore, the position of the plaintiffs is exactly the same as if that section did not exist. The decided cases on this point seem to be clear, notwithstanding the doubt that was thrown upon the case of Srimati Mallika Dassi v. Makham Lal Chowdhury 9 C.W.N. 928 : 2 C.L.J. 389. It is not necessary to go through all the cases which have gone t...
Lakenatulla and ors. Vs. Asmatulla Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.616
1. The petitioner before us was the, judgment-debtor in an execution case, in the Court of the Munsif, in which the decree-holder had attached a holding for sale. He objected to the sale on the ground that the holding was an occupancy holding and, as such, was not saleable. This objection was raised by him on the 3rd November, the sale haying been fixed for the 6th. The Munsif held that the application had been filed too late and that the sale, therefore, should not be postponed-At the same time, he directed the application to be put up on the'26th of November for hearing. The holding was sold on the 6th of November, and on the 26th the application of the petitioner havipg been put up before the Munsif, he took evidence in the matter and came to the conclusion that the hojding was not saleable, and accordingly set aside the sale. On appeal by the decree-holder, the learned District Judge set aside the order of the Munsif dated the 26th November, on the ground that the Munsif could not ...
Naboghan Badhai and ors. Vs. Raghu Nath Babu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.61
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Sambalpur, confirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of the same district.2. The land in dispute is situated in the District of Sambalpur and in matters pertaining to the land revenue is governed by the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act (XVIII of 1881) The dispute relates to an entry made in a Record of Rights prepared under Chapter VI of that Act. The entry describes the appellants as shikmi gaontias or permanent tenants under the plaintiffs, who are the gaontias of the village. At this stage of the litigation it is very properly conceded that if it is open to the plaintiffs to contest the correctness of the enter, the entry is wrong, the lease granting the appellants a permanent tenancy having been judicially set aside. On the other hand it is not denied that the appellants are entitled to possession as mortgages. In substance, therefore, the plaintiffs seek to have the entry amended so that the appella...
Har Prosad Dass Alias Dewan Dass Vs. Bakshi Bindeswari Prosad Singh Al ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.30
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Shahabad, dated the 9th September 1912. The plaintiff sued to recover certain suras that were alleged to be due to him from the defendants. The first defendant, Bakshi Harihar Prosad Singh, had a brother, Bakshi Sheo Prosad Singh. In the year 1907 Sheo Prosad Singh died leaving the second defendant, his only son. In his life-time, Sheo Prosad had executed certain promissory notes and, on the 30th April 1906, he executed a fresh hand-note for Rs, 6,000 in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of all the notes that had been executed by him down to that date. On the 22nd November 1906, Sheo Prosad executed a further hand-note for the sum of Rs. 1,000. Sheo Prosad was the karta of this joint Hindu family and the defendant No. 2, his infant son, was a member of that family which was undivided at all times material for the purposes of the present case. On the death of Sheo Prosad, the first def...
Rup Kishore Lal Vs. Neman Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal842
Holmwood, J.1. Is the Additional Judge subordinate to the District Judge ?] Yes.2. Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes the Court of the Additional Judge subordinate to the District Court.Jenkins, C.J.3. It was a transfer to the Court of the Additional Judge, and before he can try the case he must be competent to try it.4. Section 3 of the Bengal Civil Courts Act provides for four distinct Courts, the Additional Judge's Court being one. Sections deals with the appointment of Additional Judges, and in sub-section (2) of Section 8 the law contemplates the delegation of the District Judge's functions, and only thereafter can the particular case be transferred to the Additional Judge.D. Chatterjee, J.5. Must the District Judge completely assign those functions?}6. There eau be a partial assignment after the vesting of jurisdiction.Mookerjee, J.7. Do you say that there should first be an order by the District Judge transferring his functions, and then another t...
Rup Keshwar Lal Vs. Jaijai Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.935
1. The question proposed for our determination is, whether in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Bengal Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887), it is competent to a District Judge to transfer a particular case to an Additional Judge, We answer the reference in the affirmative, the reasons which induce us to adopt that conclusion are slafficiently set forth in the order of reference and we need not repeat them.2. The case will go back to the Divisional Bench for final disposal. The Divisional Bench will deal with the costs of this reference....
Surendra Narayan Singh Vs. Mussammat Lachmi Koer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.840
1. Rule No. 58 of 1915.2. This Rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif, dated the 22nd October 1914, should not be set aside on the ground that the opposite party was not the judgment-debtor within the meaning of Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. It appears that the petitioner obtained a decree against an occupancy ryot for arrears of rent and in execution of that decree, the holding was sold on the 8th September 1914 and was purchased by the petitioner. On the 22nd October 1914 a deposit of the decretal amount was made by the wife of the transferee of the tenant in question and on that day in consequence of the deposit thus made, the sale was set aside, by the Munsif of Katihar in the following terms:The judgment-debtor has deposited the entire decretal amount and compensation within time. Let the sale be set aside and the case dismissed after full satisfaction of claim.4. The petitioner obtained the present Rule on the grouud that Sectio...
Khiroda Sundari Dasi and anr. Vs. NabIn Chandra Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.64
1. This appeal is directed against an order of refusal of the Court below to set aside an ex parte decree. The respondent instituted a suit against several persons to recover a large sum of money alleged to be due from them as members of a partnership concern. The suit was decreed ex parte. Two of these defendants, now appellants before us, made an application to set aside that decree on the ground that they had no knowledge of the suit and could not appear to defend it. The Subordinate Judge has held that no case has been made out to justify an order to set aside the ex parte decree. On the present appeal, the decision of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed on two grounds; namely, first, that the summonses in the suit were not duly served upon the appellants; and, secondly, that they were, at any rate, prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.2. With regard to the first branch of the contention of the appellants, it is necessary to bear ...
Hiranand Ojha and anr. Vs. Satish Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.420
Holmwood, J.1. We have considered every section of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act VI of 1876, and the rules made thereunder, and we are clearly of opirtion that this suit is not maintainable. The Manager is the principal necessary party and there is no allegation that he, in making the order he did in pursuance of the Act was not acting bona fide. Section 22, therefore, will alone bar the suit. But it is clear from the provisions of Section 3 and Section 12 and other sections that during the time that the estate is held by the Revenue Authorities under the Act the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere on a suit brought by the creditors. The creditors have their remedy against any order of the Manager before the Deputy Commissioner and before the Commissioner. As a matter of fact in this case they went to the Deputy Commissioner and got the only grievance, which they had urged, removed. The Deputy Commissioner allowed them to retain possession of the portion of the prope...
Nawab Sir Salimullah Bahadur and ors. Vs. Kali Prosonno Parbat and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.349
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for rent. The defendants claim abatement as a portion of the land demised has been lost by diluvion. The question in controversy is, whether the tenants are entitled to abatement on the ground stated. The Courts below have decided concurrently in favour of the tenants. On behalf of the plaintiffs - appellants, it has been contended that the defendants contracted themselves out of their right to claim abatement on the ground of diluvion, under the instrument whereby the tenancy was created on the 21st September 1894.2. It cannot be disputed, indeed it has not been disputed before us, that if a portion of the land demised be washed away, the tenant is entitled to abatement of rent, on the principle formulated in Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in the case of Sheikh Enayetoollah v. Sheikh Elahee Buksh W.R. 1864 Act X, 42 Sir Barnes Peacock, C.J., stated it as settled doctrine that the tenant was entitled to abateme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »