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.
Mohim Chunder Pal Chowdhry Vs. Mirza Ahmad Ali Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.346
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit framed, in the alternative, for recovery of rent or of damages for use and occupation. The sum claimed is less than Rs. 100. It is obvious that the appeal is incompetent. If it be treated as a suit for rent, the appeal is barred under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as none of the special questions mentioned therein has been decided by the decree. If, on the other hand, the suit is treated as one for damages for use and occupation, it is barred under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Kunjo Behary Singh v. Madhub Chundra Ghose 23 C.884. Whichever view may be taken of the nature of the suit, the appeal cannot consequently be entertained. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.2. We have been invited, however, to interfere with the decree of the Subordinate Judge in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. But it is plain that the provisions of Section 115 cannot be applied to this case. The Subordinate...
Janardan Kishore Lal Sinha Deo and ors. Vs. Sib Prasad Ram and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1915
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.179
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan. The suit was brought to recover the arrears of what is called the minimum royalty in respect of certain mining leases that were held by the defendants as transferees from the original lessee. The amounts sued for were a portion of the royalty payable for 1312, the whole of the royalty payable for 1313 and 1314 and the royalty up to the Pous hid of 1315 B.S. The only question that was really in dispute between the parties as to the amounts payable was as to whether the plaintiffs had appropriated certain specific payments that had been made by the defendants towards the payment of certain other rents that were then in arrears. The learned Subordinate Judge found that point in favour of the defendants. The payments or the directions as to the mode in which the money should be applied were all in writing. There does not seem to be any doubt that the learned Judge ar...
Madhu Sudan Patitunda Vs. Rash Mohan Sen Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.38
1. We are Invited in this Rule to set aside an order for rateable distribution of assets held by the Court below. The circumstances under which the order has been made are not in controversy and may be briefly stated.2. The petitioner, Madhu Sudan Patitunda, on the 13th July 1914, instituted a suit against his debtor, Pranballabh Poddar, for recovery of money due. The suit was decreed on the 10th August 1914. Two days later the decree-holder applied for attachment of moveable properties belonging to his judgment-debtor. On the 17th August the attachment was effected anil the moveables were brought into Court. On the 4th September 1914, the Sens, who are the opposite parties to this Rule and were also creditors of Pranballabh Poddar, instituted a suit for recovery of money due from him. The Sens obtained an order for attachment before judgment in their suit and the attachment was effected on the 8th September 1914. The two suits were instituted before the same judicial officer, with thi...
Ambika Charan Chakrabarti and anr. Vs. Sasitara Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.868
1. This is an appeal by two of the defendants in a suit for partition of joint property. The property originally belonged to one Ramlochan Ganguly, who made a Testamentary disposition on the 5th November 1850. He left three sons--Tarini, Guru Charan and Ishan, and a grandson by a daughter, named Nilmoney. Tarini left two sons--Sasi Kumar and Basanta. The plaintiffs-respondents are the legal representatives of Sasi Kumar. The eighth and ninth defendants are the representatives of Basanta. The defendants-appellants have acquired the interest of Nilmoney in the portion of the property in dispute. The substantial question in controversy between the parties was, whether Nilmoney took a life-interest in the estate of his maternal grandfather, which terminated upon his death, or whether he took an absolute interest (subject to a condition which was fulfilled by him) which, upon his death, passed to his representatives. The Court of first instance decided in favour of the present appellants. T...
Bymkesh Chakrabartty Vs. Jagadiswar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1915
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.442
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated the 12th August 1915, affirming a decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover rent for the years 1313 to 1316 B.S. He sued as a 5-annas 4-pies co-sharer and he alleged that the defendants had a holding of which the rent was Rs. 17. The estate in which the plaintiff was a co-sharer bore tauzi No. 250 of the Jessore Collectorate. The plaintiff is a person who has purchased this share in the month of September 1906. In support of his claim the plaintiff gave in evidence a decree obtained by another co-sharer also of a 5-annas 4-pies share in which it was found that the defendants had a holding in the estate of which the Tauzi number was 250 of the Jessore Collectorate, and that the rent of that holding was Rs. 17 per annum. It is quite clear that to prove these facts the decree in the other suit was a relevant document. There cannot b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›