Kolkata Court July 1915 Judgments
Yusuf Akram Vs. Arfan Ali Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.45
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of the Small Cause Court Judge dismissing an application for revival of a suit which had been dismissed for default. The Small Cause Court Judge held that the plaintiff; had failed to deposit, as required by law, the amount of costs due from him to the defendant under the decree or to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court. In our opinion, this view is clearly erroneous. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act lays down that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte shall make the requisite deposit or give security. But an applicant for an order to set aside an order of dismissal for default is plainly not an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte. This view is in accord with the decision of this Court in the case of Jamina Bibi v. Seri Chand Bhagat 2 C.W.N. 693. The matter has now been placed beyond controversy b...
Tag this Judgment!Kesho Prosad Singh Vs. Sarwan Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.359
1. This is an appeal in a suit by a principal for recovery of a sum of money from his agent. The plaintiff claims three sums from the defendant, namely, Rs. 785-14 found due on adjustment of the accounts of 311, Rs. 1867-2-9 alleged to be due on the unadjusted accounts of 1314, and Rs. 661-5-6 said to have been advanced to the defendant. The agency ceased on the 15th October i907 and the suit was instituted on the 4th November 1910; but in this connection, it is to be borne in mind that the Court was closed on account of the annual vacation from the 2nd October to the 3rd November 1910, The District Judge has found, with regard to the sum of Rs. 661-5-6, that as the defendant has already accounted for it, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief in respect thereof. As regards the sum of Rs. 1,8 57-2-9, the District Judge has found that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed, and that no questions of limitation arises, as the suit was brought within three years from the date of termination...
Tag this Judgment!Udoy NaraIn Jana Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.297
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a claim by the Secretary of State for India in Council for a small sum of money which is described as peshkash. The principal defence that has been urged before us is that the annual sum claimed is an abwab. The facts negative that suggestion. The claim is by the Secretary of State, not as a landlord but as representing the Government and claiming payment of that which is payable to the Government in respect of certain embankments the upkeep of which is necessary for the preservation of land, including that to which the present defendant is entitled. The claim does not rest in any sense on the relation of landlord and tenant Therefore, we may at once negative the plea which suggests that the claim is bad as being an abwab.2. The it is said, what is the basis of this claim? The basis is long continued payment beyond the memory of man, which in itself is a title in favour of the recipient of the annual payment. That in itself is sufficie...
Tag this Judgment!Pormeshwar Dubey and ors. Vs. Gobind Dubey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.190
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mozafferpore, dated the 31st of January 1913.2. The plaintiffs brought the present suit for partition. The defence was that a partition took place between the parties in the year 1305.3. The learned Judge found that there was no such partition. The defendants called a considerable body of evidence to prove the story set up by them. The learned Judge, however, remarked 'The story of division and separation in 1305 is, therefore, a myth...I entirely disbelieve the witnesses examined by the defendants and find that there was no partition in 1305.' The defendants have asked us to dissent from this finding of fact by the learned Judge. In the first place it seems highly improbable that the partition, if there had been one, could have taken place as long ago as the year 1305. No reason is given why a partition should have taken place at that date. There is no document from which it cou...
Tag this Judgment!Bhutta Santal Vs. Dama Santal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.304
1. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate to show cause why proceedings against the petitioner should not be quashed, or why such other order should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit. The ground on which the Rule was issued was that the petitioner was prosecuted for an offence of kidnapping, which was committed not within the British Territory but within the jurisdiction of the Moyurbhunj State, which has been held in Empress v. Keshub Mohajan 8 C. 985 : 11 C.L.R. 241 to be outside British India.2. The District Magistrate seems to rely on Clause (4) of Section 181, Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that the offence of kidnapping may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person kidnapped was kidnapped or was conveyed or concealed or detained. He seems to think that although a man may have kidnapped outside British territory, he may be prosecuted within the British territory. It was pointed out in the above case an...
Tag this Judgment!Nadir Chand Saha and ors. Vs. Birendra Nath Dutt Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1915
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.126
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent on the basis of a kabuliyat executed on the 11th April 1895, for a term of one year. The kabuliyat provided that rent would be paid on the 30th July and that on default, the arrear would carry interest at the rate of 75 per cent. per year. The year expired and the tenant held over, Rent is claimed in this suit for the years 1909-10 and 1910-11, and the only question in controversy is, at what rate is interest payable on the arrears. The defendant pleaded that before the kabuliyat was executed by him, the landlord assured him that the covenant for payment of interest at 75 per cent, per annum would not be enforced, and it was on the faith of this assurance that he agreed to the insertion of the Clause in the document. The Court of first instance found that the allegation of the defendant was true and held that the landlord was not entitled to claim interest on the arrears at the rate of 75 per cent, per year...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Nag Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Bhupendra Nath Nag Chowdhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.267
1. This appeal, which has been preferred by some of the defendants in the Court below, is directed against the preliminary decree in a suit for construction of the Will of one Raj Mohan Nag Chowdhury, for administration of the estate left by him, for settlement of the accounts of the executor, for partition of such proper-ties as may be left after payment of the debts and for other incidental reliefs. The position of the parties will be clear from the annexed genealogy: Raj Mohan Nag Chowdhury, died 5th July 1880, widow Ambica Moni, died November 1893. _______________|______________________ | | | Preonath Nag Chandra Nath Nag | Chowdhury, Chowdhury, | died before 1880, died 28th July 1907, | widow widow Nishadim Dassi, | Kali Kamini Dasi, defendant No. 4 | defendant No. 3. | _________| | | _________________________________________| | | | | Kali Nath Nag Kristo Nath Nag | Chowdhury. Chowdhary, | widow Kumudini Dasi, died before 1880, | defendant No. 5 widow | | Nagendra Nandini Dasi, | ...
Tag this Judgment!Abjal Majhi and ors. Vs. Intu Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.494
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 34-6-0 a year. The defendants admitted that rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 24 a year. The Court of first instance decreed the suit in part and allowed the claim at the rate of Rs. 24 a year. The plaintiffs appealed against this decree. The defendants were satisfied with this decree; they did not prefer an appeal nor did they file a cross-objection as provided in the Code. But the District Judge on the appeal by the plaintiffs has dismissed the entire suit. The plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court and have argued that the District Judge should not on their appeal have deprived them of the benefit of the decree of the Trial Court. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the cases of Rangamlal v. Jhandu 11 Ind. Cas. 640; 34 A. 32; 8 A.L.J. 111 and Ganga Dhar Muradi v. Banabashi Padhari (2). On behalf of the defendants-respondents, reliance ha...
Tag this Judgment!Pardip Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.309
1. These twenty-one Rules have been heard together. They were issued to show cause why the orders directing the prosecution of the petitioners upon the charge of refusing to serve as special constables should not be set aside.2. The petitioners live in four villages adjoining two ferries named Dih Ghat and Itwa Ghat, lease of which is held by a certain Rambirich and his son under the District Magistrate and District Board of Mozafferpur. These ferry farmers complained that in January and March last there had been riotous disturbances over their use of the ferry, and in consequence proceedings were instituted against thirteen of the present petitioners under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of binding them down to keep the peace, During the pendency of these proceedings, the ferry farmers, on the 14th April, again complained that the vlilagers did not allow them to ply the ferry and prayed that certain persons named by them should be made special constables....
Tag this Judgment!Monmohan Roy Vs. Hemanta Kumar Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.777
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order calling upon the appellant, who has already been adjudicated an insolvent, to show cause why an order should not be made against him. under Sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. That section- authorises the Court to sentence an insolvent to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, when it is established that he has fraudulently concealed property. In this case, some of the creditors reported to the Receiver that the insolvent had fraudulently concealed property at his residence. The Receiver obtained the permission of the Court to pay a surprise visit. But the visit was of no use, because, although the insolvent was shown the order of the Court, he closed the doors and declined to admit the Receiver into the house. This was reported to the Court, and the Judge thereupon made an order on the insolvent to show cause in the terms stated. This order is clearly not appealable under...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »