Kolkata Court January 1916 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.
Kartic Chandra Mondal and ors. Vs. Nilmani Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.931
1. The facts upon which this appeal arises have only to be stated to show that the principles which have been held by the Courts in India to relieve decree-holders of their duty to bring the application for execution within three years of the last application do not apply to this case. After numerous applications for execution of a decree which was passed in December 1901, the 4th application was made on the 21st July 1908 in Execution Case No. 1443 of that year. On the 16th September 1908 the present respondent, the judgment-debtor, applied before the Court stating that the decree had been satisfied by payment which should be certified. On this a miscellaneous case was started. It appears that on the same day substitutions were made of an heir of one decree-holder and of one judgment-debtor and notices were issued under Section 248, Code of Civil Procedure, fixing the 4th of November for hearing of the execution case. The miscellaneous case came up again on the 31st October and it was...
Meah Vzir Ali Sardar Vs. Savai Behara and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.791
1. This is an appeal from an order remanding a case in appeal. The plaint was filed so long ago as the 13th May 1910. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge in the Court of first instance is dated 31st May 1911 and the judgment now under appeal before us is dated the 15th April 1912. We are now at the end of January 1916. It is, in our opinion, very lamentable that this matter should be still undecided, more especially as, for the reason which we are about to give, there does not appear to have been any substance in the appeal, 2. It is contended, firstly, that inasmuch as the Court of first instance did not decide the case upon a preliminary point the order of remand ought to have been made under Order XLI, Rule 25, and that the Appellate Court should have kept the case on its own file. In this connection it is conceded that the irregularity cannot be given effect to unless the appellant was prejudiced by the procedure adopted; and in order to establish that he was so prejudiced, it is...
Abdul Hasim Vs. Srimati Malea Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1916
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.132
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Tipperah. removing the appellant from guardianship of certain minors, and also against an order passed under Section 45, Sub-section 1, Clause (c) of Act VIII of 1890, by which the appellant was ordered to be detained in civil jail, until he paid a certain sum of money as directed by the Court under the provisions of Section 41, subsection 3. (There is also an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the orders of the Court below.2. It appears from the judgment of the Court below, and the finding of the learned Judge is amply supported by the record, that the appellant has clearly abused his trust and that his interests are adverse to those of the minors. He has, therefore, been rightly removed from the guardianship of all the minors. It further appears that the guardian applied to the Court for permission to sell certain properties for liquidation of certain debts alleged to be due by the minors, a...
The Hon'ble Maharaja Sir Rameshwar Pershad Singh Bahadur, K.C.i.E. Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.553
1. These 17 appeals are appeals in suits for rent. In 16 of the appeals it appears that the amount claimed did not exceed Rs. 100 and it is, therefore, conceded that under the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, no second appeal lies.2. It has been suggested to us that in these cases we should treat the appeals as applications under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. But we are not prepared to take this course in these cases, as it appears to us that the plaintiff-appellant has or had other remedies.3. These sixteen appeals (Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 259 and 270 to 284 of 1914) are, therefore, dismissed. We make no order as to costs.4. In the remaining Appeal No. 269 of 1914 the amount claimed exceeds Rs. 100 and, therefore, a second appeal lies.5. The appeal is against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, by which he remands the suit for re trial with the direction that one Chandi Pershad, whose title to the rent had been set up by the tenant defendants, sho...
Chandra Kanta Ganguly and ors. Vs. Srimati Sarojini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.786
1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why she should not furnish security for the costs of the petitioner here and in the Court below.2. The case is one of a Hindu widow, who alleges that she did not enter into a certain ekrarnamah making over the management of her husband's property to the father of his adopted son. She likewise denies the adoption. The learned Judges who issued the Rule were, both of them, Hindu Judges and must have fully in their minds the position of a Hindu widow and the rulings protecting her interests.3. It is argued before us that there is a hard and fast rule that unless the plaintiff has no interest in the litigation but is a mere puppet in the hands of others, there cannot be any order for security for costs. We do not think that any such hard and fast rule has ever been laid down. The nearest approach to it is a ruling of a Single Judge of this Court on the Original Side in the case of Khajah Assenoollajoo v. Solomon 14 C. 533, and...
Ketokey Churan Banerjee and anr. Vs. Sreemutty Sarat Kumari Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.71
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the adjudication in insolvency was made on the 2nd of February 1912, upon the petition of Sarat Kumari Dabee. An application for the cancellation of the adjudication was made in March 1912, based, as I understand, on the ground that there was no debt due to Sarat Kumari Dabee, and this application for the cancellation of the adjudication was dismissed, and, therefore, the adjudication in insolvency stood. And, the first point taken by the learned Counsel appearing for Sarat Kumari Dabee was that inasmuch as the adjudication had been made upon her petition, it was not now open to the insolvents to question her right to claim in the insolvency as a creditor. I do not think that is a sound point, for the reason that if we look at the Sections of the Second Schedule to the Presidency. Towns Insolvency Act, Sections 25, 26 and 27, it is clear, to my mind, that after the adjudication of insolvency the Official Assignee is to examine every proof and the...
Muhammad Abdul Qadir Vs. Jnan Chandra-pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.738
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Special Land Acquisition Judge on a reference from the Collector. The reference has not been printed and we do not really know what it was. This omission and the extraordinary manner in which the documents of the contesting parties have been intermingled in the paper book and statements vitiated by the omission of negatives in printing have caused us much difficulty in disposing of the appeal, a difficulty which has not been rendered lighter by the order in which the learned Counsel elected to argue the appeal. Among the points that arise in the appeal are a question of res judicata and one of adverse possession. The first, which is a bar at the outset, was not argued until the whole record had been placed before us and the appeal argued on the question of title. The second which is the only point in the case that has any real substance in it, was not brought forward till the very end of the argument on the second day.2. The question in dispu...
Ganga Das Sil Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.752
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title to, and recovery of possession of, the lands in dispute, which are alleged to have formed a noabad taluk purchased by the plaintiff at a sale held under the provisions of Act XI of 1859, The defendants did not deny the plaintiff's title to the six plots of land originally claimed in the plaint, but denied his title to the additional plots which were subsequently included in the plaint by way of amendment.2. The Court of first instance gave a decree to the plaintiff for all the plots. On appeal that decree was reversed and the suit was entirely dismissed, the Court of Appeal below having held that the plaintiff had no cause of action with respect to the six plots as to which the plaintiff's title was not denied. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.3. The Court of Appeal below held that the plaint which was amended at a late stage is at variance with the notice served under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code upon the d...
Musammat Mutesari Vs. Nand Kumar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.842
1. We accept the reference for the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge and set aside the order for maintenance dated 30th September 1915. We may refer in this connection to the cases of Musammat Jamoti v. Gadalo Kamar 1 C.L.R. 89 and Laraiti v. Ram Dial 5 A. 224. In our opinion, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of 12th January 1915 dismissing Musammat Mutesari's application for maintenance was a final order so far as the Magistrate's Court was concerned....
Ramu Pal and ors. Vs. Prakash Chandra Sarma Purkayestha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.757
1. Two persons of the name of Nepal and Gopal owned an occupancy holding consisting of the disputed lands in this case. These two persons had also a proprietary right in the mauza in which these lands were situated. In execution of a' money-decree against these two persons their occupancy holding was brought to sale and was purchased by the plaintiff. In the execution case Nepal and Gopal did not take any objection that the property was not saleable and could not, therefore, be sold. They kept silent and the property was sold and purchased by the plaintiff in 1896. In this case, it has been held by the learned Subordinate Judge that occupancy holdings are not saleable by the custom of the locality in which the disputed lands are situated. In the execution case in 1896 Nepal and Gopal should have objected both as raiyats and as landlords that the occupancy holding sought to be sold was not saleable and could not be sold. That was a matter concerning the satisfaction of the decree in exe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »