Kolkata Court July 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.
Krishna Nath Chakravarti Vs. Muhammad Wafiz
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.789
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The disputed property belonged to one Parbaty Sankar Pandey whose interest therein was terminated by a sale in execution of a decree held on the 22nd September 1910., On the 24th November 1910, the plaintiff took a lease of the land from Parbaty Sankar Pandey and, in his own words, went to take possession. The result was a dispute with the defendant which culminated in a proceeding under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate found on the 22nd March 1911, that the defendant (then complainant) was in possession and that the accused (now plaintiff) was likely to commit a breach of the peace. He consequently directed that the plaintiff should be bound down and should execute a bond to keep the peace for one year, on the 15th June 1911. The plaintiff instituted this suit for declaration of his title under the lease from Parbaty Sankar Pandey and for recovery of possessi...
Hira Lal Chatterjeb and ors. Vs. Giribala Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.444
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The plaintiff claims one third share in the disputed property by right of inheritance from her husband. The Courts below have found that she is entitled only to one-half of what she claims and have made a decree accordingly. The defendants contend that there is a variance between pleading and proof and that the plaintiff should not be allowed to succeed on a case different from what she made in her plaint. To appreciate the force of this objection, it is necessary to bear in mind that although in the Court of first instance, the plaintiff claimed only one-third shire, and it was consequently unnecessary for her to deal with the devolution of the other shares, yet she went, on to state that another one-third share belonged to Durga Charan and the remaining one third share to Kalinath. The defendants did not dispute these latter allegations; in fact, they clai...
Surendra NaraIn Roy Chowdhury Vs. Dinanath Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1915
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.33
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 27 a year. The defendants contended that they had been dispossessed o a portion of the lands of the tenancy by title paramount and that the plaintiff was consequently not entitled to the entire rent claimed. The Court of first instance found that the defendants had not been dispossessed of any lands of their tenancy by title paramount and decreed the claim in full. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has found that the defendants have been deprived of a portion of the lands of their tenancy by title paramount and that they are entitled to au abatement of rent. He has, however, dismissed the suit, as there is no evidence to show what rent is payable to the plaintiff in respect of the lands still in the occupation of the tenants. On the present appeal, it has been argued that the burden of proof was upon the defendants to show, to what extent they are entitled to abatement of...
Nilmoni Behara Vs. Rukuna Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.210
1. The plaintiff's case was that defendant No. 1 bad executed an istemrari lease in his favour for consideration and registered it and put him in possession, but that he had lost the document and been subsequently dispossessed of a part of the lands sold: he, therefore, sued for declaration of title and recovery of possession of some lands and confirmation of possession in respect of others. The defendant's plea that she had executed the document under it misapprehension has been found against her. Her further plea was that the consideration had not been paid and she had taken back the document from the Registration Office and never parted with possession but that the document was lost in a flood. The lower Appellate Court has found that there was no payment of consideration, no delivery of possession and no delivery of the document. It is contended before us that the title of the plaintiff was complete by the registration of the document and he is entitled to a decree even if no consi...
Kiranshashi Debi and ors. Vs. Chandrika Prosad Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.587
Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors against an order of the Subordinate Judge ordering execution of a decree against them. It appears that this decree was passed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on 16th February 1910. Before that, the judgment-debtors had obtained a decree also for money in the Munsif's Court for presumably a lesser amount. In execution of that decree, the judgment-debtors, instead of applying as they should have done for a set-off, attached the present decree under Order XXI, Rule 53, Code of Civil Procedure. The decree being passed by a different Court from that in which the judgment-debtors had obtained their decree, the attachment must have been made under Clause (1)(b) of that rule, that is to say, by a notice by the Court which passed the decree sought to be executed requesting the other Court to stay the execution of the decree unless and until the Court which passed the decree sought to be executed cancelled the notice or the decree-hold...
Atimannessa Bibi Vs. Abdul Sobhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.21
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal consists of immoveable property dedicated as wakf in or about the year 1836 by a Muhammadan named Azimuddin Mistri. A mosque was erected by the founder on a portion of the land and income for its maintenance is derived from the remainder, which is in the occupation of tenants. Azimuddin constituted himself the first mutwalli and acted as such so long as he was alive. He appointed his grandson Imamuddin as the next mutwalli; the latter executed a tawliatnama on the 13th March 1854 whereby he appointed one Sekandar as his successor in the office of mutwalli with authority to appoint a successor. On the 1st December 1892, Sekandar, in exercise of the power vested in him, appointed his daughter Sobran Bibi as mutwalli; she performed the duties of the office for over seven years and died in the year 1900 without appointing anyone as mutwalli. Two brothers of Sobran, Yakub, Yasin by name, however...
Safer Ali Mandal and ors. Vs. Golam Mandal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.177
1. We are invited in this Rule to review our judgment in the case of Golam Mandal v. Safer Ali Mandal. That Rule was obtained by the defendants, in a suit for recovery of rent of homestead land, to set aside the decree of the Small Cause Court Judge on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Rule was heard ex parte on the 4th June 1914 and was made absolute. On the 3rd September 1914 the plaintiff and two of the defendants applied to us to review our decision on two grounds, namely, first, that the notice of the Rule had not been served upon the petitioners, and, secondly, that materials essential for a correct decision of the question in controversy were not placed before the Court. We accordingly granted the present Rule. The allegation that the notice of the Rule had not been duly served, has not been contradicted by the opposite party. We have consequently allowed the matter to be re-argued, and this course was clearly desirable in view of the fact that the ques...
Kusadhaj Bhakta Vs. Broja Mohan Bhakta Minor by His Mother and Guardia ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.13
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to set aside a decree in a previous suit, on the ground that the Judge in passing the decree in that previous suit made a mistake. As an authority for this suit and its competence we have been referred to the decision in the case of Jogeswar At a v. Ganga Bishnu Ghattack 8 C.W.N. 473. It may be that a superficial examination of that decision gives an appearance of authority for the proposition which the respondent advances before us and apparently has advanced with success in both he lower Courts.2. Already it has become noticeable that there has been a crop of cases in this Presidency in which it has been sought to set aside previous decrees on the ground of fraud. The readiness to find fraud encourages this class of litigation and the new departure has been a misfortune. If we encourage the idea that the alleged mistake of a Judge is to furnish a disappointed litigant with a fresh smarting point for keeping his opponent in Cou...
Choudhury Suressur Misser and anr. Vs. Musammat Mohesh Rani MesraIn an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.983
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga dismissing their suit.2. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Kesab Misser deceased. Kesab was step-brother of Madhab, the father of the defendants third party. The defendant No. 1 is the widow of and the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 the daughters of Nunoo Pershad Misser who died on the 18th of Baisakh 1313. Nunoo also left him surviving a son Nageswar Pershad. He died childless on the 24th Bhadro 1313.3. The plaint in this suit alleges that on the death of Nunoo, his son Nageswar succeeded to his properties and that on the death of Nageswar his mother, the defendant No. 1, took the properties. Further, that the defendant No. 1 wishing to benefit her daughters, the defendants Nos. 2 to 5, caused a false Will of Nunoo to be filed before the District Judge of Darbhanga by her daughters and that in that case, Madhab Misser at the instigation of the defendants Nos. 8 and...
Koer Sarabjit Pratap Bahadur Sahi Vs. Musammat Bhagwat Koeri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.578
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Sarabjit Pratap Bahadur Shai, from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saran dismissing his suit. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain properties as heir of his maternal grandfather, Sri Kishun Singh. The genealogical table attached to the plaint shows the relationship between the parties. Sri Kishun Singh died on 29th July 1872 leaving a widow. Kamalbas Koeri, and two daughters, Ram Kawal Koeri, defendant No. 3, and Raj Kishori Koeri, defendant No. 4. The plaintiff is one of the sons of Ram Kawal Koeri. His elder brother, Raja Shatrujit Protap Bahadur Sahi, died on 5th October 1898. Kamalbas Koeri, the grandmother of the plaintiff, died on 9th September 1899. Raj Kishori Koeri had one son, Ram Narayan Singh, who died on 12th December 1910. The plaintiff's suit was filed on 2nd September 1911. During the pendency of the suit, namely, on 25th January 1913, the plaintiff's mother, defendant No. 3, died. The parties defendant are No. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »