Kolkata Court May 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.
Akbar Fakir Vs. Intail Sayal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.707
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in an action in ejectment commenced on the 10th April 1912. The plaintiff is the admitted proprietor of the land in dispute. The defendants resist his claim on the ground that they came into occupation by his leave and license under an agreement for sale executed on the 12th February 1912, whereby it was stipulated that a conveyance would be executed by the plaintiff in their favour on or before the 13th April 1912. Rupees 80 was fixed as the consideration and the plaintiff was actually paid Rs. 50 on the date of the agreement. The defendants alleged that they subsequently offered the balance but the plaintiff refused to accept the sum and execute a conveyance. The question thus arises, whether this constitutes a sufficient answer to the claim for ejectment.2. On behalf of the plaintiff, reliance has been placed upon the decision of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Kurri Veerareddi v. Kuni Bapireddi 29 M. 336 : 1 M.L.T. 153 : 16 M.L.J. 395 ...
Keshari Chand Surana and ors. Vs. Asharam Mahato
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.250
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of money due on five instruments described in these proceedings as hundis. The substantial question in controversy between the parties is, whether these instruments have been properly admitted in evidence under Section 35(a) of the Indian Stamp Act. The documents are engrossed on paper which bears an impressed stamp of four annas each, They are, each of them, attested by a witness, and the money secured there by is not payable on order or demand. The contention of the appellants is that they were not admissible in evidence even upon fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in Section 35(a) of the Indian Stamp Act. That section is in these terms: 'No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is...
Kalim Sheikh Vs. Mocham Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1915
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.719
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for rent. The land in dispute originally belonged to one Golak Sheikh. In execution of a decree for money obtained against him, one Kissen Singh purchased a portion of the holding on the 23rd March 1904. Thereupon the representative of the original tenant took sub-leases from the purchaser in respect of a portion only of the land acquired by him, under two leases dated the 14th and 19th February 1905. On the 7th July 1906, the plaintiff took a settlement from the superior landlord of the disputed land which constituted the occupancy holding of Golak Sheikh. He subsequently sued to eject Kissen Singh as a trespasser and obtained a decree against him on the 14th February 1908. When he attempted to execute this decree, he was opposed by the present defendant, the representative of the original tenant, who was still in occupation of the land. The result was a proceeding under rate 100 of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, which terminated...
Biswa Nath Sinha Vs. Bidhumukhi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.677
1. A dwelling house belonging to a Hindu widow was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation money amounting to Rs. 5,800 odd was sent by the Collector to the District Judge under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Upon the lady making the application for taking out that money for the purpose of building a house to live in, there was an objection at first on behalf of the reversioner; but ultimately, the reversioner gave his consent to the money in deposit being invested by the Court under Section 32(a) of the Land Acquisition, Act for the construction of a suitable building. This consent was given upon an application of the lady for paying out the money to her. The order No. 14 shows that 'the Pleader for the opposite party intimated that he had no objection to the permission being granted to the petitioner to withdraw the money in deposit for the construction of a suitable building for the petitioner.' After this order was made to pay out the money, there was an ...
Akhil Chandra Sen and ors. Vs. Tripura Charan Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.563
1. This appeal is concerned with certain dags, which I may classify as group-I and group II. The argument as regards group I is that the appellants must be taken to be occupancy raiyats in the estate sold to the plaintiffs, and they claim a protected interest in the dags covered by this group as against the plaintiffs, who as auction-purchasers of the taraf were entitled to cancel all the encumbrances. We have been referred on this point to the pattah granted in the year 1848, set out in the paper-book at page 13. From this it appears that what was given was a permanent raiyati interest described as istemrari kaimi raiyat and istemrari daimi kaimi pattah. If this was the grant of a permanent interest, and if, as is admitted, at the date of this grant there was no occupancy right which had matured, then it seems to me not possible that an occupancy right could be acquired after the date of the grant. But if we read this document in reference to this permanency as relating solely to the ...
Bhudar Chandra Goswami Vs. C.R.S. Betts
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.347
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for damages for breach of contract. On the 1st October 1910, the plaintiff stipulated with the defendant to engage his elephant up to the 31st March 1911 for a sum of Rs. 700 for the purpose of khedda operations (to capture wild elephants). The contrast provided that the elephant would be delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 1st October 1910; but the defendant obtained an extension of time till the 6th October, and yet did not deliver the elephant till the 11th October. The plaintiff refused to, accept the elephant, and on the 26th October 1910 instituted this suit for recovery of damages to the extent of Rs. 2,000. The plaint states that, according to the terms of the contract, the defendant, upon failure to make over the elephant on the date specified, would pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 2,000 as compensation. The Courts below have found that this is not a correct interpretation of the contract, whi...
Mani Mohan Mandal Vs. Ramtaran Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.329
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision by the lower Appellate Court. For that decision there can be no justification unless it can be brought within the terms of Rule 23 of Order XLI. But that clearly cannot be done, for the Court of first instance did not dispose of the case on a preliminary point but on the merits after discussing the whole of the evidence that the parties, without any restriction, placed before it.2. It has been suggested before us that Rule 23 is not exhaustive, and for that purpose we have been referred to Section 107, Sub-section (1), Clause (6), of the Code where, no doubt, it is said in general terms that an Appellate Court shall have power to remand a case. But this argument overlooks the opening words of the section, which provide that subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed a Court shall have that power. If we turn to the definition clause we find that 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules, and rules' means rules ...
J.i.J. Hyam Vs. M.E. Gubbay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.53
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance brought by the plaintiff, who claims to have entered into a concluded contract for the sale to the defendant of immoveable property in Calcutta. Negotiation is not denied, nor is there any dispute as to the identity of the property or as to the price, but it is contended by the defendant that there is no concluded contract and certainly not one that should be specifically enforced. The offence failed before Mr. Justice Chitty, and he passed the decree for specific performance from which this appeal is preferred.2. The property in dispute belongs to the plaintiff, Mr. Gubbay, who lives in London. Mr. R.C. Cohen, acting on his behalf, instructed Mr. Owen, a house-broker, to find a purchaser. The price ultimately asked was Rs. 1,33,000. Mr. Owen found a person ready to purchase at that price in the defendant, Mr. Hyam, who is in the habit of buying property with a view to subsequent building operations. Mr....
Juggobundhu Saha Vs. Chand Mohan Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.33
1. This Rule was granted on the application of the second defendant in a suit for partition to set aside the decree made therein by the Court below on the basis of an arbitration award. The petitioner impugns the decree on two grounds, first, that the Subordinate Judge acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction when he declined to examine the arbitrator at the request of the second defendant, who alleged that the arbitrator had been guilty of judicial misconduct; and secondly, that the decree made by the Subordinate Judge in conformity with the award is, in part, made without jurisdiction, because it affects immoveable property which is not the subject-matter of the litigation.2. As regards the first ground, it appears that when the award had been submitted, objection thereto was taken by the petitioner on the allegation that the arbitrator had delegated his authority to a stranger and that the award was in essence not the act of the arbitrator, but of that pe...
Sukumari Ghosh and anr. Vs. Gopi Mohan Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.662
Imam, J.1. This matter comes up for further direction on the Assistant Referee's report. The principal question involyed in it, is one of costs. The defendant had sued the plaintiffs for arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 1,886-12-6 in the Small Cause Court of Calcutta. The plaintiffs then instituted this suit in this Court for account against the defendant. The suit in the Small Cause Court was removed to this Court for trial with this suit. The plaintiffs represent the estate of the late Mr. Lal Mohan Ghose, and it is the common case of the parties that in 1908, the defendant was the manager of the Bairagadi Estate belonging to the deceased. In answer to the claim of the plaintiffs for account, the defendant in his written statements stated that he was not accountable to the plaintiffs nor had he been accountable to the late Mr. Ghose, inasmuch as he had fully explained to the latter all his dealings with the said estate and the management thereof. The plaintiffs admitted the defenda...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »