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.
Ramnath Sil and anr. Vs. Siba Sundari Debya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1915
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.348
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in an action in ejectment. The defendants, who are barbers by caste and profession, held the disputed land under the plaintiffs on condition that they would serve them as barbers and enjoy the land in consideration of their service. The plaintiffs seek to eject the defendants on the allegation that they have forfeited the tenancy, as since 1901 they have refused to perform the requisite service. The defendants urged that the tenancy is held at a money rent, that there has been no forfeiture and that they are entitled to a reasonable notice to quit, before they can be evicted. The Courts below have found on the merits in favour of the plaintiffs and have decreed the suit. In our opinion, that decree is manifestly right and cannot be successfully assailed.2. As the origion of the tenancy is unknown, two alternative hypotheses have been placed before us. If the tenancy be assumed to have been created before the Tansfer of Property Act came into opera...
Gopal Proshad Bhagat and ors. Vs. Rajendra Lal Panja and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.625
1. This Rule was granted upon an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. The main question raised in the Rifle is, whether an application by a decree-holder certifying partial satisfaction of a decree is a step-in-aid of execution of the decree within the meaning of Article 182 (5) of the Second (First?) Schedule of the Limitation Act.3. The question has been considered in several cases and answered in the affirmative. In Tarini Das Bandyopadhya v. Bishtoo Lal Mukhopadaya 12 C. 608 the learned Judges held that such an application is a step-in-aid of execution of the decree, and observed: 'when a judgment-creditor comes into Court and certifies to the Court the payment of a sum, that proceeding takes place in consequence of an arrangement as to payment between him and the judgment-debtor, and because if he had not certified, the judgment-debtor could, under the law, compel him to do so. The effect of the certificate is to satisfy the decree so far as the...
Jamadar Singh Vs. Raja Jagat Kishore Acharya Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.697
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The objection taken by the respondent to the competency of this appeal raises a question of first impression. The plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 132 8-0. He claimed Rs. 82-8-0 arrears of rent and damages; and he added thereto a claim for Rs. 50 as damages for breach of contract. His allegation was that the defendant had failed to prepare and deliver certain papers as he had undertaken to do, and had made himself liable under the terms of the agreement between them to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 50. The defendant protested against the joinder of these claims in one suit; but his objection was overruled. The case was tried on the merits, and a decree was ultimately made against him. That decree has been confirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. On the present appeal, the defendant seeks to contest the propriety of the decision of the Court of Appeal below.2. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf o...
In Goods Of: G.A. Quiningborough
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.958
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, made by the Taxing Officer on the original side of this Court. The circumstances under which the reference has been made are lucidly stated in the order of reference and need only be narrated here very concisely.2. An application has been made by the Administrator-General for Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of G.A. Quiningborough as in a case of intestacy. As the application has been made by the Administrator-General, no affidavit of valuation, such as is required in the case of an ordinary application under Section 19H of the Court Fees Act, has been filed. But, in accordance with established practice, the Administrator-General has set out in his petition a list of the estate, and in another list the debts payable out of the estate. The value of the estate in the first list is given as Rs. 1,244-11-0, and the amount of the debts in the second list at Rs. 522, leaving a balance o...
Kailash Mai and ors. Vs. Dwarika Nath Majhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.788
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated 7th January 1915, after remand from this Court. I was one of the Judges responsible for the order of remand and may be that the remand order might have been expressed in more clear terms, so that the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court might not have fallen into an error. As a matter of fact, I think, if the order be read as a whole, there is no doubt--and it is not suggested that there is any--that there is ambiguity in the order of remand; and the only person who has fallen into a doubt as to the meaning of the order of remand seems to be the learned District Judge. What the order meant is this: That it was outside the authority of the learned District Judge to send the case back to the Court of first instance directing the Judge there to add the Secretary of State as a party to the suit and the order of remand directed the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court to re-hear th...
Bhata Ram Das Vs. Kshitish Chandra Lahiri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.83
1. These two appeals, Nos. 2548 of 1913 and 3830 of 1918, may be heard together. The first appeal refers to a purchase of a part of a non-transferable holding and the second to a purchase of the whole of such holding. The landlord brought a suit for rent against the recorded tenants, the purchasers not having been recognised by him. In that suit he brought the property to sale, purchased it and took possession. Thereupon the purchasers of the part and of the whole of the holdings respectively brought two suits to recover possession, and the Court below held that the purchasers of a non-transferable holding were not entitled to maintain these suits to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud.2. In the first case the learned Vakil for the appellant relied upon the Full Bench decision of Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy Chowdkuri 27 Ind. Cas. 61 : 18 C.W.N. 971 : 20 C.L. 52 : 42 C. 172, which held that the transferee of a holding not transferable by custom can, by a suit, recover possession ...
Ram Krishna Bose and anr. Vs. Mohanta Bhagwan Ramanuja Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.27
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, dated the 28th March 1912. The appeal was heard by us ex parte and it was decreed on the 28th May of the present year. Subsequently another Bench of this Court on an application made to them set aside our judgment and directed us to re-hear the appeal. With all deference, I doubt the jurisdiction of another Bench of this Court o set aside our judgment and direct us to re-hear the appeal. If there were grounds for setting aside our judgment, the application ought to have been made to us. I understand from Sir Rash Behari Chose, that he mentioned the matter to the Chief Justice who also expressed his doubt as to the jurisdiction of another Bench to do so. However, Sir Rash Behari Ghose, on behalf of the appellants, has not pressed the point and is willing that the appeal should be re-heard by us.2. The point that we dealt with on the last occasion was a point of law arising on the findings of fa...
Maharam Ali Vs. Ayesa Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.562
1. This is a suit to recover maintenance against a Muhammadan husband. The claim is in respect of the period of iddat after divorce. A document of talaknamah was executed by the wife in accordance with the provisions to that effect in her kabinnamah. Both the Courts have come to a conclusion that the wife is entitled to maintenance and that the divorce which she purported to effect, was a good and valid one. On appeal, it has been contended that there is no cause of action either in fact or in law. The facts are that the wife claimed under the terms of the kabinnamah to divorce herself from the husband under the powers which had been given her in the event of his marrying a second wife, and further she alleges that she has the right to divorce herself because he has imputed unchastity to her and refused to maintain her. These are findings of fact with which we cannot interfere in second appeal. It mast be taken that such facts do exist. But it is said that in law, it was not possible f...
Jitendra Nath Palit Vs. Lokendra Nath Palit and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.657
Imam, J.1. This is an action brought to declare that two indentures, dated the 15th June 1912 and the 8th October 1912 respectively, executed by the late Sir Tarak Nath Palit are invalid and inoperative in law and that the properties covered by those indentures are unaffected thereby and form part of the estate of the deceased, and further for an order that the executors under the Will of the late Sir Tarak Nath do, in due course of law, administer the said properties as assets belonging to his estate.2. The plaintiff Mr. Jitendra Nath Palit is one of the two sons of the late Sir Tarak Nath, and, under the Hindu Law of the Bengal School by which the family is admittedly governed, is one of the heirs of the deceased.3. Sir Tarak Nath died on the 3rd October 1914, leaving a Will dated the 2nd May 1914, whereby he appointed his second son Mr. Lokendra Nath Palit and Mr. Sisir Kumar Mullick executors thereof. At the time of his death his heirs were his two sons above mentioned and his wido...
Kiranbala Debi Vs. Kali Charan Singha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.29
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampore dismissing her suit. The plaintiff brought her suit to recover certain properties that represent one-half of the estate originally belonging to one Shibaram Singh. Shibaram died on the 9th of August 1836 leaving a widow, Chhaya Kumari, aged about 14 years and a daughter, Foodan Kumari by a former wife. Foodan was many years older than the widow. She was married to Chait Lal Singh and had two sons, Ram Lal and Behari Lal. On the death of Shibaram his widow succeeded to his properties. By a subsequent arrangement with Foodan Kumari and Chait Lal Singh, Chhaya Kumari was left in possession of 8-annas share of the property, except one mehal which was made over to Ram Lal. The other 8-annas share in the property was made over to Foodan Kumari and Chait Lal Singh.2. The present suit relates to the 8-annas share of the property retained by Chhaya Kumari. The defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »