Kolkata Court August 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.
Lani Mia Vs. Muhammad EasIn Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.448
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in an action in ejectment. On the 23rd March 1903 the plaintiffs, who are occupancy-ryots, granted a sub-lease to the defendant on an annual rent of Rs. 5, for a term of nine years from 14th April 1903 to the 13th April 1912. The lease as also its counter part contained a covenant that upon the expiry of the term, the tenant would take a fresh settlement and that the landlords would grant him such settlement. On the 19th August 1912, the plaintiffs served a notice upon the defendant and offered him a lease for a term of five years on an annual rent of Rs. 10. The defendant refused to accept this offer and claimed a renewal for nine years at the original rent. On the 7th October 1912, the plaintiffs instituted this suit to eject the defendant. The defendant pleaded that he was in the position of a lessee who had obtained a renewal of the original lease for a term of nine years at the annual rent of Rs. 5 and was consequent...
Gopeswar Saha Vs. Jadab Chandra Chandaray and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.537
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. These appeals are directed against the decree in a suit to enforce two mortgage-bonds assigned by the original mortgagee to the plaintiff. The bonds were executed on the 25th July 1898 and were assigned to the plaintiff on the 16th July 1906. The principal sums secured by the bonds were Rs. 525 and Rs. 375 respectively, which carried interest at the rate of 15 3/4 per cent, per year-with triennial rests. The plaintiff commenced this action on the 13th September 1911 for recovery of Rs. 4,979-9, namely, Rs. 900 as principal and Rs. 4,079-9 as interest thereon. He joined as principal defendants the mortgagor as also the purchaser of the equity of redemption, in whose favour the transfer was completed on the 16th September 1911. The substantial question in controversy relates to the amount of interest justly recoverable by the plaintiff. The defendants contended, first, that the rate of interest was penal, and, secondly, that the interest was suspended from the 1st...
Bouwang Raja Challaphroo Chowdhury Vs. Banga Behary Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.394
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of money. On the 16th January 1895, the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 400 on interest at 4 per cent, per mensem, with six-monthly rests; the money was made re-payable at the end of a year. These terms were incorporated in a bond executed by the defendant, and subsequently registered and delivered to the plaintiff. On the 25th December 1901, the defendant paid the plaintiff Rs. 20 on account of interest, and on the 22nd December 1904, he made a similar payment of Rs. 30. These payments were duly endorsed on the back of the bond and the entries were signed by the defendant. On the 15th December 1910, the plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of his dues on the bond. The schedule to the plaint set out an elaborate statement of accounts which showed that on the date of the commencement of the suit, a sum of Rs. 8,75,345-8 was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. In the third paragraph of the plaint, howeve...
Khub Lal Singh and anr. Vs. Ajodhya Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.433
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is immoveable property admittedly included in the estate of one Syamlal Misser, who died in 1889. He was succeeded by his widow Puna Koer, who, on the 2nd May 1899, granted two permanent leases of the disputed land to the defendants on nominal rents. Puna Koer died in 1910. On the 20th May 1911 the plaintiff, whose paternal grandfather was the brother of the father of Syamlal Misser, instituted this suit for recovery of possession on declaration that he had succeeded to the estate as reversionary heir and was not bound by the permanent leases granted by the widow. The defendants resisted the claim on the ground that the transactions impeached were lawful, valid and justified by Hindu Law. The Courts below have concurrently found that the leases had been granted to raise money for the excavation and consecration of a tank and for the erection of a wall in connection with a temple founded by Syamlal Misser shortl...
Gangadhar Pradhan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.626
1. The petitioner laid an information at a Police Station to the effect that his house had been broken into at night. The Police investigated and reported that the charge was false. They requested that the petitioner be prosecuted under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. The report was received by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Upon the same date the Sub-Divisional Magistrate received a petition from the petitioner impugning the Police, report and asking that the persons whom he accused should be put on their trial. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate referred this petition to a Sub-Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and report, intimating that, if the Sub-Deputy Magistrate agreed with the view taken of the case by the Police, he might, submit a proceeding under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Deputy Magistrate examined the petitioner and his witnesses and held a local investigat...
Akimannessa Bibi and ors. Vs. BepIn Behari Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.499
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part. The defendants have appealed against the decree in so far as it is adverse to them. The plaintiff has neither preferred a cross-appeal nor presented a memorandum of cross-objections. On a previous occasion, a Division Bench of this Court directed a local investigation. That investigation has now been made and the appeal is before us for final disposal. After the arguments on behalf of the appellants had been concluded and while the arguments on behalf of the respondent were in progress, an application was made to us on behalf of the plaintiff for leave to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit upon the same cause of action. This application has been opposed by the appellants on two grounds, namely, first, that as a portion only of the subject-matter of the controversy is before us, it is not competent to this Court ...
Punit Narayan Singh and ors. Vs. Rajkumari Godabari Koeri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.580
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders against an order which decides that they are not entitled, in execution of a decree for money obtained by them against Rani Sundar Koer on the 10th May, 1911, to proceed against the estate of her husband, now in the hands of his two daughters. The facts material for the determination of this question are not in controversy. On the 20th February, 1903, Rani Sundar Koer executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of Punit Narain Singh for a loan of Rs. 25,000. The mortgagee paid Rs. 1,500 in cash and retained the balance for payment of a decree obtained by one Baldeo Lal against the mortgagor on the 18th February, 1903. The usufructuary mortgagee was subsequently deprived of possession of the hypothecated properties as the result of a dispute between the mortgagor and her brother-in-law, which culminated in the Court of Wards taking charge of the entire estate. The usufructuary mortgagee was consequently driven to institute a...
Nikunja Rani Chowdhurani Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.460
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of a penalty imposed on her under Section 19E of the Court Pees Act, 1870. The facts material for the determination of the questions of law raised before us are undisputed, and lie in a narrow compass. The appellant applied for Probate of a Will executed by her husband Kailas Chandra Choudhury. Thereupon notice was issued to the Collector of Faridpore under Sub-section 1 of Section 19H of the Court Pees Act. As no reply was received from the Collector, Probate was issued to the petitioner on the 28th August 1900 on payment of Rs. 1,563, the duty payable upon her valuation of the estate. On the 10th December 1908, the Collector, of Faridpore, who had meanwhile communicated with the Collector of Backergunge where some of the properties were situated, held that the value of the estate was Rs. 1,69,128, and not Rs. 78,122 as stated by the petitioner in her application for Probate. He accordingly directed the petitioner to amend t...
Srimati Swarnamoyi Debi Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.394
1. This appeal is directed against an order whereby the District Judge has in substance refused to issue a Probate to the appellant till a sum of Rs. 709-3-0 had been paid as succession duty. The facts are not in controversy and may be briefly recited. One Prasunna Kumar Bhattachariya died on the 28th October 1908. He had previously made a testamentary disposition of his properties on the 24th March 1907. The Will provided that during the minority of his son, Amulya Kumar Bhattachariya, his estate would be administered, first, by his eldest sister, Gobinda Sundari Debi, and, next, upon her death, by his widow, Swarnamoyi Debi; the ladies were thus constituted the two successive executrixes. On the 29th April 1909 Probate was granted to Gobinda Sundari Debi under Section 21 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881, though it was not explicitly stated that the grant was made durante minore otate. The executrix died on the 17th July 1914. As the sole residuary legatee had not yet attai...
Abdul Rahman Chowdhuri Vs. Ahmadar Rahman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.554
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant purchased a putni taluk at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, and sued to recover possession of the lands in suit which were included in the taluk, from the defendants who were in possession thereof by purchase from the former putnidar. The Courts below dismissed the suit on the ground that the purchases made by the defendants of portions of the putni were 'incumbranees' within the meaning of Section 161, Bengal Tenancy Act, which had not been annulled according to the provisions of Section 167 of that Act. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.2. Before dealing with the above question, I will notice a point raised on behalf of the respondents, viz., that the landlord was bound to recognise the transfers of portions of a permanent tenure, and the transferees not having been made parties to the rent suit, the sale held in execution of the decree for rent passed only the interest of the person who was a party to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »