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.
Muhammad Bukth Majumdar Vs. Dewan Ajmon Raja and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.701
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Teunon, by whom it has been held that the lower Courts have erroneously regarded certain judgments and decrees as constituting res judicata. At the same time he felt that he must affirm the decree of the lower Appellate Court, on the ground that the wakfnama to which the decree related, was not before him and that he had no means to form an opinion as to whether or not it was a void and invalid wakf as the Court had decided in a previous litigation.2. We are in the same predicament. But there is another aspect of the case by which we are influenced and it is this. From the judgment of the Munsif, it appears that the validity or invalidity of the wakf was a matter that came before the High Court and was a subject of adjudication in the High Court. We have been told in the course of the argument that the invalidity of the wakf was affirmed on legal grounds. The result then is that there is an adjudication by the Hi...
Eakuf Ali and ors. Vs. Meajan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.686
Woodroffe, J.1. This appeal has been heard at very great length; but I think the appellant has established his argument. The facts are that under the landlord there was a raiyat of the name of Fakir Mahamed. Fakir Mahamed mortgaged the property to one Ishan Poddar, who got possession. Ishan inducted the present defendants on the land. The landlord brought a suit for rent against the heirs of Fakir Mahamed and he bought' up the holding at a sale for arrears of rent. The first and perhaps the main question in this appeal is, what is the effect of such purchase? Did it, as has been contended by the respondent, effect a complete merger of the holding and of the occupanncy right in the landlord's right or did it, as the appellant contends, keep alive the occupancy holding though merging the occupancy right? This question has been discussed in the case of Akhil Chandra Biswas v. Hasan Ali Sadagar 20 Ind. Cas. 698 : 19 C.W.N. 246 : 18 C.L.J. 262 where, a distinction is drawn between an occupa...
Rajab Ali Chowdhury Vs. Hedayet Ali Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.699
1. The plaintiff and the defendants in the present suit are residents of Chittagong, who were carrying on business at Rangoon. In 1898 the business of the plaintiff and his brother, defendant No. 5, failed and it is alleged that he thereupon under the advice of ISTur Ali, the predecessor of defendants Nos. 2 and 4, paid Nur Ali a sum of Rs. 50,000 out of his own pocket for the purpose of settling with the creditors of the joint business. In 1899 the plaintiff and his brother fell out and the latter declined to contribute his share of Rs. 50,000 thus paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff admits that he thereupon on the 5th June 1899 at the instigation of Nur Ali executed in favour of Nur Ali a collusive mortgage-bond for Rs, 67,000, in which he gave as security the joint ancestral properties of himself and his brother, signing the bond on behalf of himself and also on behalf of his brother upon the authority of an alleged power-of-attorney. Being subsequently advised that the power-of-at...
Shyam Lal Ghosh and ors. Vs. Rameswari Basu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.273
1. This is art appeal against an order of the District Judge of Rajshahya revoking the Probate of the Will of one Ram Lal Ghosh, which was granted to his two younger brothers, the appellant Shyam Lal Ghosh, and Suk Lal Ghosh, since deceased (the father of the other appellants), so far back as the 20th March 1878.2. It appears that Ram Lal, Shyam Lal and Suk Lal were three brothers; members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. They had a first cousin Basanta Kumar, who was also a member of the joint family. They had ancestral family dwelling house at Basuarih in the District of Jessore. They also had a residence at Rampore Boalia, the headquarters of the Rajshahye District, where Basanta Kumar was a mukhtear, Shyam Lal was a revenue agent and Suk Lal served as a treasurer in the local Collectorate. Ram Lal Ghosh, the eldest, did not do any business at Rampore Boalia. The evidence is conflicting as to whether he ordinarily used to reside at Rampore Boali...
Basi Nath Pal and ors. Vs. Raja Jagat Kisore Acharjee Chowdhury and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.298
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of a share of land on declaration of shikmi taluki right (hereto. The subject-matter of the litigation is waste land in Mauza Gurai included in estates Nos. 51 and 80 of the Collectorate of the District of Mymensingh. The estates were sold in 1S33 for arrears of revenue and passed into the hands of one Bhawani Kishore Acharyya Choudbury, the predecessor-in-interest of the first defendant. According to the plaintiff the defaulting proprietor, or his predecessor, had created six shikmi taluks, which comprised the whole village, excluding 2 kanis of private land held in the possession of the proprietor and some specific lands comprised in two other taluks Chand Ram and Sova Ram. The plaintiffs set out their title by transfer and succession from the tenure-holders and allege that they have been wrongfully kept out of possession by the first defendant. The first defendant defended the suit mainly on the ground that ...
Giriraj Kanta Chakrabutty and ors. Vs. Mohim Chandra Acharjya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.294
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for possession of land and huts on declaration of title by purchase at a sale in execution of a mortgage-decree. The facts essential for the decision of the questions of law raised before us may be briefly stated. Three brothers A, B and C, were owners of the disputed property, and their interest may be regarded as the unit for our present purpose. On the 18th December 1887, A and B executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff; they dealt with the entire property and apparently ignored the interest of their brother C.A died in 1892 and left his two brothers B and C as his representatives. On the 30th November 1895 the mortgagee sued B and C to enforce his security. B was made a party in his character as one of the original mortgagors, and also as one of the representatives of A; C was described only as the representative of his deceased brother A There was no allegation in theplaint that the mortgage, though executed by A and B, was op...
Kedar Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Haridas Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.790
Jenkins, C.J.1. The point in contest in this litigation is whether in a Dayabhaga family, the great-grandfather's son's daughter's son or the maternal uncle is to be preferred. The proposition only has to be stated to make one realize what an amount of learning and industry the problem might demand. We have had the advantage of having the position of the maternal uncle advocated before us by one who is worthily following in the steps of his distinguished father and we can say; much as we regret the absence of Babu Golap, we do not feel we have suffered anything in view of the argument that has been addressed to us.2. Undoubtedly there are, as Babu Rishendra Nath Sarkar has brought clearly to our notice, a number of considerations that might be brought into play were the matter untouched by authority. But a Full Bench of this Court, as far back as Gooroo Gobind Shaha v. Anund Lal Ghose 13 W.R.49 (F.B.); 5 B.L.R. 15 came to a conclusion as to the principle-of succession in a Dayabhaga fa...
Sidheswar Panda and ors. Vs. Pitbas Gaontia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1915
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.261
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiffs prefer this appeal. They are co-sharer Gaonias in a village in the District of Sambalpore to the extent of twelve annas. Defendant No. 1 is another co-sharer Gaontia with an interest of two annas, and he is also the lambardar Gaontia. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are co-sharers to the extent of the remaining two annas.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that the lambardar took proceedings in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner for the ejectment of two tenants from their lands, obtained an order for their ejectment and took possession of their land on July 21st, 1909; and then without their approval granted a lease of the land to defendant No. 5, Dibakar. The plaintiffs say that the lambardar had no authority to grant such a lease, and that they served a notice on him warning him not to grant a lease, and they claim to be put in khas possession of the land to the extent of their interest.3. The first Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit, but this decision was re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›