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.
indra NaraIn Sarkar and ors. Vs. Bedeswari Dassya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.32
1. This is a suit brought upon a mortgage. Amongst other defences, a plea was taken that a certain sum specified had been paid; it was admitted, however, that there was a balance due.2. The first Court found that the sumalleged to have been paid had not been paid. On appeal, the District Judge, on the ground that the plaintiff had not produced the original deed upon which it was alleged that an endorsement of payment had been made, dismissed the suit.3. It is conceded that this was an error, it being admitted that as there was some money still outstanding on the mortgage, the suit should not have been entirely dismissed. Had the matter rested there, it might have been possible for us to have dealt with the question ourselves. Bat on reading the judgment I think it would be advisable that we, while setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Courts, should send the case back for re-decision. The onus of proving the payment alleged by the defendant was upon her. The firs...
Janardan Mahato Vs. Bhairab Chandra Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.365
Chitty, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit on 14th May 1909 against Srimati Thaka Sundari Dasi, wife of Naba Gopal Roy, for specific performance of an agreement to sell to him certain land. The suit has been dismissed in both the lower Courts and the plaintiff has consequently appealed.2. It appears that, by a bainamah, dated 12th Sravan 1315 (27th July 1908), the first defendant, Thaka Sundari Dasi, agreed to sell to the plaintiff this land for a sum of Rs. 3,100. Of that Rs. 200 was paid as earnest money. The bainamah provided that the sale should be completed in three months, when the sale-deed was to be registered and the balance of the purchase-money paid, The plaintiff subsequently paid and the defendant accepted a sum of Rs. 85 on 7th Asvin 1315. That was before the three months named in the bainamah had expired. The parties thereafter did not come to terms with regard to the completion of the document. The plaintiff says that he asked Naba Gopal ...
Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Kalitara Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.953
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for assessment of rent of land which, the defendants contend, they hold under a rent-free title. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Upon appeal, the District Judge has reversed that decision, and has held, first, that the decision of the question by the Settlement Officer does not conclude the matter in controversy, and, secondly, that from the long and uninterrupted possession of the defendants without payment of rent to the plaintiff or his predecessor, the inference may legitimately be drawn that the original grant-was rent free. On the present appeal, the validity of the conclusion of the District Judge upon the second aspect of the case has not been disputed; but it has been argued that the decision of the Settlement Officer, which was adverse to the defendants, operates as res judicata, and that it was not open to the District Judge to come to an. independent determination on the merit...
Niras Purbe and anr. Vs. Musammat Tetri PasIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.82
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the District Judge, reversing the decree of the Munsif. The plaintiff was possessed of a piece of land in Darbhanga town. His case was that he left home on pilgrimage in 1901 and that his wife remained in possession of the land, but that on his return from pilgrimage in 1911 he found that his wife had conveyed the property to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 on 25th July 1901 and had died in June 1902. He claimed to recover the land from these defendants on the ground that his wife had no power to sell to them. On the finding of fact, however, arrived at by the learned District Judge, it appears that the plaintiff has really no case. He admits that he allowed his wife to mortgage the property for Rs. 115 in 1894 in favour of Doman Panjiar. The plaintiff's case is that that mortgage was executed before his departure on pilgrimage, and that that was done by his consent. He, therefore, at that time expressly consented to his...
Panchumoni Dassi and anr. Vs. Chandra Kumar Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.319
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal ponies before us under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by reason of the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the High Court, who on the first instance heard the original appeal.2. It has been suggested that no appeal lies to us under the Letters Patent. But we have overruled that objection and we think that it is prefectly clear that an appeal does lie under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Any other conclusion would lead to a very anomalous result.2. Having said so much in favour of the appellants, I think there is nothing more to be said in their favour in this case. It is a pure question of fact as to whether the Will was executed or not. Mr. Richardson, as he then was, the District Judge of Alipur, decided in favour of the Will and he did not do so lightly and without thought, because at the very outset of his judgment he made it clear that there were circumstances which made it clear, In his opinion incumbent, that the eviden...
Abdul Sheikh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.684
Sharfuddin, J.1. The case was tried by Jury.2. We have heard the learned Vakil appearing for the appellant. He contends that there has been a misdirection in the charge, first, because in the charge-sheet the common object has not at all been mentioned and he relies on the cases of Behari Mahton v. Queen-Empress 11 C. 106, Sabir v. Queen-Empress 22 C. 276 and Poresh Nath Sircar v. Emperor 33 C. 295; 2 C.L.J. 516; 3 Cr. L.J. 153. There are, however, other cases which go to show that the omission to mention the common object in the charge-sheet does not necessarily vitiate the trial. The second ground urged by the learned Vakil is that in the charge to the Jury, the learned Sessions Judge has not drawn their attention to the case set up by the defence and that some of the witnesses who were present at the time of the alleged occurrence were not examined in the trial.3. The learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer admits that the charge is inadequate.4. The learned Sessions Judge should have dra...
Gopi Sundari Dasi Vs. Haladhar Mazumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.583
Mullick, J.1. It is admitted that the bara taraf and chota taraf were two co-sharer landlords in possession of an occupancy holding measuring 14 bighas 5 cottas through certain tenants, Torap, Dinu, Juman and Jarip. Torap transferred his half share in the holding to Ananda and Dinu's share was inherited by his son, Enait. We next find that Juman and Jarip had somehow dropped out of the holding and that there was some kind of division of the lands of the holding, and that Ananda paid rent separately of his share to the bara taraf and Enait for his share to chota taraf. We are concerned in the present suit with Ananda's portion of the holding. It is admitted that Ananda by a Will bequeathed his land to Bipin, the son of his mistress, Dhonomoni, and that defendant No. 3,Bonalata, the widow of Bipin, made a dar-jote settlement in favour of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff, who is the bara taraf landlord, sued defendants in this case for ejectment on the allegation that Ananda had no right to...
Atrabannessa Bibi Vs. Safatullah Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.189
1. A question of law of first impression has been raised in this appeal, which has been preferred by the plaintiff in a suit for partition of joint immoveable property. On the 30th April 1906 the plaintiff took a conveyance in respect of a share of the disputed land from her brother. On the 28th September 1909 the plaintiff instituted this suit for partition and joined her vendor as proforma defendant. The contesting defendants resisted the claim on the ground, amongst others, that the sale was a fictitious transaction and that the plaintiff as the nominal owner was not entitled to maintain the suit. The Courts below have concurrently found upon the facts in favour of the defendants and have dismissed the suit. The question thus arises whether a benamidar can maintain a suit for partition of joint immoveable property.2. On behalf of the appellant reference has been made to the cases of East Poddar v. Ram Krishna Poddar 1 C.W.N. 135 and Baburam Mandar v. Ram Sahai Sahoo 8 C.L.J. 305 whe...
Ahmed Musaji Saleji Vs. Mamooji Musaji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.315
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. We certainly do not decide that there is any right of appeal in this case. But even if there were such a right We would decline to interfere.2. The obligation of the defendants is clearly-defined by an order of the 11th May 1915, which fixed certain dates for payment of instalments of the considerable sum of money which their Lordships of the Privy Council directed to be paid into Court. Instead of imposing upon the defendants the obligation, which was strictly theirs, of paying the whole sum at once, a provision was made for this payment by instalments. The matter came before the Court of Appeal not by way of appeal from that order, but from an order for enforcement of payment. As I was a member of the Court of Appeal, I think I can say that 1 doubt the wisdom of the indulgence that was then granted by the Court. It was an indulgence which was intended to be used properly and we did not anticipate that it would be abused.3. Assuming an appeal lies, did Mr. Jus...
Baijnath Mistri and ors. Vs. Raja Jung Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.906
1. Though we have heard Mr. Sen and listened to an interesting and careful argument, we certainly do not mean to hold that he was entitled to be heard and that an appeal lies. But it is enough for us to say that notwithstanding what he urged, it is clear that there was no case for revision under Section 115 of the Code.2. We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.3. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »