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.
Mahendra Nath Maity Vs. Girish Chandra Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.561
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Midnapur, dated the 26th June 1913, affirming the decision of the Munsif. The, suit involves the question as to the right of succession to seven bighas of land, which formerly belonged to a Hindu woman who is now dead. The contest is between her husband find her brother? That the property was the stridhan property of the deceased Woman, there can he no doubt. The question is what was the nature of the stridhan that was acquired by this woman. The learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below has found that the property was given to the woman seven years after her marriage and that it was a property not given on the occasion of her marriage. The case for the husband, who is the appellant before us, is that there was a promise to give the property at the time of the marriage and that the gift must be taken as a ratification of the promise. That, of course, is not correct. The promise was one that was not capable of bei...
Byomkesh Chakrabarti Vs. Haladhar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.700
1. This appeal arises from a decision holding that an application for execution of a decree obtained by a co-sharer landlord for his share of the rent without making the other co-sharers parties, is governed by Article 6 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. There is certainly one case which favours the contention of the appellant. That is the case of K.B. Butt v. Gostha Behary Bhuiya 17 Ind. Cas. 207 : 16 C.L.J. 379 : 16 C.W.N. 1006. That case, however, was not argued for the respondent and the learned Judges said that that was a suit to which provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act did not apply However, there has been a number of cases both preceding and subsequent to that in all of which, the Judges took a contrary view. These cases are Thakomoni Dasi v. Mohendra Nath 3 Ind. Cas. 389 : 10 C.L.J. 463, Mrilyunjoy v. Bhola Nath 20 Ind. Cas. 833 : 18 C.L.J. 81 Khetra Mohan v. Mohim Chandra Das 18 Ind. Cas. 595 : 17 C.W.N. 518 and Kedar Nath v. Ariha Chunder Roy 5 C.W.N. 763 : 29 C. 5...
Surendra Narayan Mitra Vs. Dejindra Prosad Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.464
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Jessore affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the first Court there. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover mesne profits or damages in respect of certain lands of which he had been kept oat of possession by the defendants Nos. 1 to 56. The plaintiff in the year 1396 obtained a lease of about 600 bighas of land at an annual rent of Rs. 196 odd from the defendants Nos. 57 to 69. When the plaintiff attempted to take possession, he was resisted by the defendants Nos. 1 to 56. Then happened what has caused the difficulty in the present suit. In the year 1900, the defendants Nos. 57 to 60 instituted a suit to recover possession through the plaintiff of the lands together with mesne profits. The present plaintiff was the pro forma defendant to that suit. But it is quite clear that that suit ought to have been dismissed, because either the defendants Nos. 57 to 60 had a right to possess the lands in which ca...
Sib Kishore Ghosh Vs. Manik Chandra Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.453
1. This Rule was issued under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts. Act, 1887, on an application by the plaintiff in the suit, who is a Pleader by profession. His case is that he was engaged to resist the claim in a mortgage suit instituted against the defendant. He successfuly defended the suit, which was dismissed with costs on the 3rd February 1911. He alleges that the defendant paid him Rs. 5 only on account of fees and has refused to make any further payments. He consequently instituted this suit on the 29th January 1914 for recovery of such sum as the Court may adjudge reasonable, and values the relief at Rs. 45. He states incidentally in the plaint that Rs. 50 would be a fair measure of remuneration, as that was the sum decreed in favour of the defendant as against his opponent in the mortgage suit. The defendant pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and, further, that the plaintiff had been paid whatever was lawfully payable to him. The Small Cause Court Judge d...
Behari Lal Nandy and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Nebu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.806
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the decree of the Small Cause Court complained of should not be set aside. The plaintiffs are the petitioners in this Rule. The plaintiffs brought the suit against the defendant No. 10 and others claiming damages for the wrongful removal of fish from a tank. The defendant No. 10 is a co-sharer of the plaintiffs and the other defendants. He set up the plea that, by means of an arrangement arrived at between him and the other sharers, he had been put in possession of the tank with the right of fishery therein for a period of nine years and that he removed the fish under such authorization. It is said that that lease is void having regard to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. That makes no difference fn a suit like this, because the act that was done in removing the fish is a past act and at that time, if under an arrangement, lease or license, whatever it may be called, the right was in existence...
Sonai Chutia Vs. Sonaram Chutia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.692
1. This is an appeal from a judgement of Mr. Justice. He has reversed the decree of the lower Appellate Court, which had confirmed the decree of the Munsif. It appears to us that the determination the lower Courts did substantial justice between the parties. And although there may be some difficulty in supporting the reasons by which they arrive at that conclusion, the record furnishes sufficient foundation for a decision in favour of the defendant. It is true that the defendant was a mortgagee and in possession. And, no doubt, in view of that fact we must have regard to what was decided in the case of Sibendrapada Banerjee v. Secretary of State for India in Council 34 C. 207 : 5 C.L.J. 390. But we have the additional fact in this case that it is in evidence that on the occasion of the subsequent oral sale there was a delivery of possession, the boundaries were pointed out, formal possession was delivered and a mortgage document was endorsed and handed over to the defendant. Everything...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›