Kolkata Court June 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.
India General S.N. and R. Co. and anr. Vs. Lal Mohan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.35
1. This Rule was issued on the application of two of the defendants in the suit tried by the Court below. The plaintiffs opposite party instituted this suit against the India General Navigation and Railway Company and the River Steam Navigation Company for the recovery of damages on account of short delivery of goods committed to their care for transmission by them as public carriers. The third defendant, who was the consignor of the goods, was joined as a matter of form and no claim was made against him. The plaintiffs described the principal defendants as the India General Navigation and Railway Company and the River Steam Navigation Company by their joint agent Mr. A.E. Rogers. Mr. Rogers entered appearance and pleaded that the suit was not maintainable against him. When the case came on for trial, it was represented to the Court on behalf of Mr. Rogers that he had retired from the service of the. Companies mentioned and had in fact left the country. The plaintiffs thereupon applied...
Mati Lal Poddar Vs. Judhistir Das Teor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.181
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the preliminary decree in a suit for partition of joint property. The decree has been assailed on two grounds, namely, first, that the lower Court has erroneously determined the share of the plaintiff; and, secondly, that the lower Court has made an incorrect order for costs in favour of the defendants.2. As regards the first ground, it appears that the disputed property was, on the 10th September 1898, purchased at an execution sale for Rs. 6,130 by a person whom we shall call X. X had a brother Y who had four sons A, B, C and D. On the 7th November 1900, X conveyed a six-annas share of the property to his three nephews A, B and C. On the 14th June 1910, A transferred a two-annas share to the defendants on the assumption that he was, competent to deal with that share as one of the three brothers in whose favour the conveyance had been executed by X. On the, 6th October 1910, X, B, C and D conveyed fourteen-and-a-half-annas share to the pla...
Raghunath Jha Vs. Babu Birjnandon Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.444
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiff obtained six decrees on hand-notes against defendant No. 1, Ramji Lal Das, and his father, and in execution caused the property in suit an other property to be put to sale, and himself purchased it on April 11th, 1906. Meanwhile, he says, Ramji Lai fabricated three bonds, among them a mortgage-bond purporting to have been executed on February 25th, 1893, in favour of Raghunath Jha, defendant No. 2. The latter obtained an ex parte, decree against Ramji Lal on the basis of this2. mortgage-bond in Suit No. 26 of 1906 and in execution bought the property now in suit. In February 1907 the plaintiff asked the Court to put him in possession of the property in suit, but resistance was offered by Raghunath Jha. The Munsif disposed of the matter by an order dated February 18th, 1907. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on August 8th, 1910, and the reliefs for which he asked were, so far as this appeal is concerned, for declaration that the mortgage bond of Febr...
Hiranmoy Kumar Saha Vs. Ramjan Ali Dewan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.694
1. This is a suit, for arrears of rent. It was necessary for the plaintiff to establish that he was the defendants landlord. He proposed to do that by utilizing, among other things a decree for rent which he had obtained in a prior suit against these defendants. The lower Appellate Court has rejected the decree as an item of evidence, apparently on the ground that it was ex parts. This is manifestly erroneous. The decree is not merely an item of evidence, but is conclusive as to the relationship between the parties at the time to which the previous suit referred. That does not mean that in the circumstances of this case it is conclusive as to the present relation between the parties. But it is good and valuable evidence in so far as it establishes the relationship at a time that has passed. Its value becomes more apparent when the terms of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and illustration (d) are borne in mind, which does not compel, but certainly permits, the Court to make a presumptio...
Rash Behari Lal Mandal Vs. Tiluckdhari Lal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.797
Fletcher, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the period of limitation for a portion of the claim is governed by Article 2 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act or Article 116 of the Indian Limitation Act. The suit was brought to recover arrears of rent due under two kabtdiats. The first kabuliat was dated the 23rd of May 1902 and was given in respect of certain properties leased to the defendant for a term of four years (1310-13-3) at a rent of Rs. 1,200, per annum. The second kabuliat was dated the 15th of January 1906 and was given in respect of certain other properties leased to the defendant for a term of eight years (1313-1320) at a rent of Rs. 438 a year.2. The rent that was in arrears and was sued for was for the year 1313 under the first kabuliat and under the second kabuliat for the years 1313 to 1318. The defendant's estate was taken charge of by the Court of Wards on the llth November 1908, and whilst his estate was under their charge the Collector g...
Kuraram Datta Vs. Banomali Patra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.838
1. This case is really concluded by the finding of fact of the lower Appellate Court, and nonetheless so, because that finding may have been very timidly expressed. It is objected that the defendant cannot rely on fraud in the absence of a suit brought by him to set aside the decree. But that does not seem to be a sound appreciation of the position. It has been decided otherwise in the case of Rangnath Sakhafam v. Gvind Narasinv 28 B. 639 : 6 Bom. L.R. 592.2. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Administrator-general of Bengal Vs. A.D. Christiana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.157
Chaudhuri, J.1. This suit relates to the estate of one Alexander Watson Christiana. He left a Will, dated the 1st October 1897. On the 10th January 1898, Probate was granted. The Administrator-General is now in possession of the estate. The following questions have arisen and the plaintiff is desirous to have them determined by this Court: (i) Whether interest is payable out of the estate of the testator, on the legacies of Rs. 1,000, to each of the surviving grandchildren named in the margin of the said Will and the representative of a deceased grandchild, and, if so, from what date and at what rate? (ii) Amongst whom, in the events which have happened, is the residue of the estate of the testator, after payment of the aforesaid legacies of Rs. 1,000 each, and interest thereon, if any, divisible, and in what shares and proportions is it so divisible? The paragraphs in the Will relating to the legacies run thus: 'To my grandchildren named in the margin I leave Rs. 1,000 each from the s...
Anath Nath Mitra Vs. the Midnapur Zemindary Co., Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.802
1. The appellant is a defendant in a suit for the recovery of enhanced rent. It has been conclusively determined that he is a tenure-holder and not a raiyat and the only question that remains for decision is, whether the rent he pays is liable to enhancement. The Subordinate Judge of the first Court at Midnapur held that the rent was enhancible and dismissed the suit. This decree has been reversed by the District Judge.2. From the decree of the District Judge the present appeal has been preferred. Among the points urged in opposition to the appeal is the contention that the conclusion of the District Judge is on a question of fact and so it cannot be questioned in an appeal from appellate decree.3. To appreciate this argument it is necessary to observe what the conditions are which bear on the question of enhancibility of rent. Variableness is the normal condition and even the naming of a sum is not conclusive against this.4. Each case, however, has to be judged by its own peculiar cir...
Bhikariram Bhagat and ors. Vs. Maharaj Bahadur Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.152
1. The defendants were raiyats holding certain jamas under the father of the plaintiff at Nalbati. When the Bokhara station on the Nalhati-Azimganj Railway (broad gauge) was opened, the father- of the plaintiff wanted to establish a bazar. To do so he wanted shopkeepers to settle on his lands near the station. The defendant Bhikhari was asked to come and open a shop, and he did come and was given some lands to build his shop which would necessarily be his dwelling house also. He built a katcha thatched house and held his shop there for a time. Then after a short time he built a pakka room and subseqaently other pakka rooms and resided with his family there and held his shop as well. He acquired several raiyati jamas in this place also under the plaintiff, so that be is a raiyat under the plaintiff at Nalhati as well as this place called Sanko or Raipur Telkul. Being a raiyat at Nalhati he acquired the lands for building the shop where he resided, and then he became a raiyat at Raipur T...
Raj Gobind Singh Vs. Behari Pathuk and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.247
Walmsley, J.1. The facts out of which tins application arises are as follows: The petitioner obtained a mortgage-decree on the 20th August 1908 on contest against one Behari and ex parts against defendant No. 2, Ramdham, who is not the opposite party, Behari appealed to the District Judge but his appeal was dismissed. The decree-holder then applied to have the decree made absolute and after securing an order to that effect, he took out execution proceedings and caused the mortgaged property to be sold. He purchased it himself and was put in possession on the 15th September 1914. On the 30th November 1914, Ramdhani, against whom, the decree had been passed ex parte, submitted an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, asking to have the ex parte decree set aside. On the 30th of January, some sort of agreement was arrived at between the parties to the effect that Ramdhani should pay into Court the decretal amount: and on that being done, the decree-holder should relinq...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »