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.
Sris Chandra Datta Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Mahima Chandra Datta Chaudhu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.17
Ashutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the first three defendants in a suit for partition of joint property. The substantial question now in controversy between the parties is, whether the suit as framed is maintainable.2. The disputed property, the subject-matter of the partition claimed by the plaintiffs, is included in an estate Azimpur which has been divided and formed into five separate estates. One of these divisions is called Choi Hissya, wherein the sixth defendant has a share. The plaintiffs have acquired the position of permanent tenure-holders under the sixth defendant in a taluq Ananda Bose and a howla Chandraprabha; they claim an one-anna nineteen-and-a-half-gandas and one til share in the howla and taluq mentioned. Their allegation is that the lands now in suit, which are comprised in Mauza Icholi, are included in the Choi Hissya estate and have been separated by metes and bounds so as to be capable of partition without reference to other lands of the estate. The d...
Ujir Sheikh Vs. Syed Ali Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.159
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order setting aside the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, should not itself be set aside. It has been argued that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction under the Code to set aside that order and, further, that on the merits the order ought not to have been set aside. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, we think that the Appellate Court had power to set it aside under Section 423(d), Criminal Procedure Code, which authorises the Appellate Court in an appeal to make any incidental order. So far as the merits are concerned, it appears that, on the findings of the Appellate Court, the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, ought not to have been' allowed to stand, and that the Appellate Court was, therefore, right in setting it aside. This Rule must be discharged....
Bhuban Mohini Dasi Vs. Gajalakshmi Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.119
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly reversing the decision of the Munsif of Serampur. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us brought a suit to recover a certain sum of money on a mortgage security. The sum advanced was Rs. 500. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were pardanashin women. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has set aside the decree of the Munsif. Hence this appeal to this Court.2. There is only one question in this case and that is whether, on the findings of fact, the defendant is bound by the mortgage security. It has been found by the learned Judge, and that finding is not quarrelled with, that the lady borrowed Rs. 500 and received the money for her own purposes. That, of course, is a material finding. It has also been found by the learned Judge that the lady instructed her own men to draw up the mortgage-deed. It has also been found that her mukhtear an...
Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners Vs. Haridas Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.271
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Hooghly, dated the 10th May 1913, modifying the decision of the Munsif, third Court, at Howrah. The plaintiffs brought their suit against the defendant, the Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of Howrah, for a declaration that a certain pathway was a private pathway and that the defendant Municipality had no right or control of any kind over the said pathway and further, for an injunction restraining the defendant Municipality from interfering in any way with the control of the said pathway. The case obviously raised two questions: first of all, whether the pathway vested in the Municipality and, secondly, if it was not so vested, whether the Municipality had any right of control over it. Those two defences were distinctly raised in the written statement filed by the defendant Municipality. The case went for trial before the learned Munsif and the Munsif found that the pathway was, what he called, a p...
Haradeb Das Agarwalla Vs. Ananda Sheik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.894
1. This appeal is clearly incompetent. It is directed against an order of remand, made under Rule 23 of Order XLI of the Code, in a suit of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and valued at less than Rs. 500. If a decree had been made in the suit by the lower Appellate Court, that decree would have been non appealable under Section 102. Consequently, no appeal lies against the order of remand, for Clause (u) of Rule 1 of Order XLIII allows an appeal against an order under Rule 23 of Order XLI remanding a case, only where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court. It may be observed that the pre-existing law in this respect has been changed by the Code of 1908. Under the Code of 1832, an appeal was allowed against an order of remand by Clause 28 of Section 588, and it was ruled in a long series of decisions that this right of appeal was not restricted by Section 586: Kirte v. Ramjan 10 C. 523 : 5 Shome L.R. 159; Mathura Nath Ghose v. Nobin Chandra Kundu 24 C....
Mohes Chandra Guha Vs. Rajani Kanta Dutt and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.29
1. This Rule was granted under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, on the application of the plaintiff in the Court below. He sued to recover money due on a bond for Rs. 100 executed in his favour on the 28th July 1910 by one Tilak Chandra Dutt and his two sons, Rajani Kanta Dutt and Mohesh Chandra Dutt. The bond recited that on the 28th May 1904 the plaintiff advanced Rs. 50 to Tilak Chandra Dutt and Mohesh Chandra Dutt and took a bond on the basis whereof payments had been made from time to time, that a considerable sum was still due on account of principal and interest, and, that inasmuch as Mohesh Chandra Dutt was not present and could not renew the bond, Rajani Kanta Dutt joined his father Tilak Chandra Dutt in the execution of the second bond. The Small Cause Court Judge has dismissed the suit as against the two sons on the ground that in so far as they were concerned, the bond was executed without consideration and was not binding on them as it was not registere...
Annoda Charan Naya and anr. Vs. Dasarath Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1915
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.444
Fletcher, J.1. This an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of the 24-Perganas, dated the 9th April 1915, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge at Alipur. The plaintiffs were three in number. They brought a suit to recover possession of certain land. The plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 were the original tenants of the property, the 1st defendant being the landlord. Certain rents having fallen due by the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 to the landlord, the defendant No. I, a suit for rent was instituted and an ex parte decree was obtained on the 10th July 1900. The property was then attached and brought to sale and purchased by the defendant No. 1. The sale was confirmed on the 15th August 1900. On the 2nd June 1902, the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 sold their interest to the plaintiff No. 1 and immediately executed a kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. On the 18th May 1905 the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 took a lease of the property from the defendant No. 1. On the 26th May 19...
Tara Sankar Ghose and anr. Vs. Sheik Nasaruddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.476
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner sued the opposite party and four other persons for recovery of arrears of rent. The opposite party, who was the first defendant, alone entered appearance and filed a written statement. On the day of trial, however, no one appeared on his behalf. The result was that an ex parte decree for rent was made against him on the 15th January 1914. On the 25th January, he made an application to the Court to set aside the ex parte decree. That application was granted on the 27th September 1914. The validity of this order is now challenged on two grounds, namely, first, that the Court was not competent to entertain the application under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of 1908, inasmuch as the requirements of Section 153A of the Bengal Tenancy Act were not fulfilled; and, secondly, that the Court was bound to dismiss the application as barred by limitation under Article...
Madhusudan Sen Vs. Rakhal Chandra Das Basak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.697
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for accounts. The facts material for the decision of the questions of law raised before us may be briefly stated. On the 5th September 1895 the defendant was appointed agent of the plaintiffs and their co-sharers for management of their estate. The defendant and his father at the time hypothecated immoveable property as security for the due performance of the duty of the first defendant as agent. This bond was executed in favour of persons who were proprietors of a half share of the entire property. One of these, Radhika Mohan Das, was interested to the extent of one-eighth share; another, Rakhal Chandra Das, for himself and as guardian of his infant brother, Brojo Gopal Das, was interested to the extent of another one-eighth share. Two other persons, Gobind Lal Das and Keshab Lal Das, were each interested to the extent of one-eighth share. The proprietors of the remaining one-half share were not parties to the transaction, but it h...
Durga Mohun Gangopadhya and ors. Vs. Sukumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.412
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit for rent; and the plea advanced by the defendants is that there has been a commutation under Section 40 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. As regards the years 1315 and 1316, if that plea is good it furnishes an answer. But the plaintiffs take exception to the commutation proceedings or at any rate to their finality; for he says under Section 40 there can be no commutation unless the tenant is an occupancy raiyat and unless he pays for the holding rent in kind, or on the estimated value of a portion of the crop or at rates varying with the crop, partly in one of those ways and partly in another, or partly in any of those ways and partly in cash. The plaintiffs say that this question must be decided in this suit and that it is open to the Civil Court to question the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority.2. The judgments of the Munsif as also of the Subordinate Judge and of Mr. Justice Hoy are all against the plaintiffs. The judgment of the Munsif is to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »