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.
Sadulla Mridha and ors. Vs. Joynabunnbssa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.703
D. Chatterjee, J.1. An occupancy holding not transferable by the custom of the locality was inherited by three brothers, defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. They jointly sold a portion of the jote to defendants Nos. 12 and 13 and established sub-ryots of whom defendant No. 6 is one. The name of defendant No. 1 alone, however, was recorded in the sherista of the landlord, who brought suits against defendant No. 1 alone and obtained decrees some of which were satisfied by all the brothers, while in execution of the last of such decrees he sold the jote and purchased it himself and after obtaining delivery in execution settled the jote with the plaintiff, who brings this suit for possession. The Courts below have decreed the suit and hence this appeal by defendants Nos. 2, 3, 6, 12 and 13, principally on the ground that as against them the suit should have been held as barred by limitation in that the landlord had obtained only symbolical possession which was of no avail against them as they were...
Gobind Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. Kailash Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.230
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken in execution of a decree dated the 25th April 1907. The appellants are the decree-holders and the respondent is the judgment-debtor.2. It appears that on the 27th April 1899, the respondent mortgaged thirty-seven properties to Krishna Chandra Pal, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, as security for a sum of Rs. 22,000, On the same date the respondent executed in favour of the same person another instrument described as a security bond by which the same thirty-seven properties were made security for a sum of Rs. 25,000.3. Decrees were obtained on both instruments. The decree now under execution is the decree on the security bond. The decree on the mortgage is dated the 26th June 1908.4. The decree on the security bond has been printed. It is a decree against the respondent personally for the sum of Rs. 55,000 with interest and costs. A declaration is added that the appellants are entitled to a lien over the thirty-seven propertie...
Upendra Chandra De Vs. Girish Chandra De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.402
1. At the hearing of an appeal in the lower Appellate Court an application was made by the appellant to withdraw from the suit on the allegation that other persons not named in the petition were necessary parties. The respondent was not found upon being called and the learned Judge at once made an order allowing the appellant to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit.2. It is contended before us that the order was without jurisdiction as there was no evidence upon which the Court could have acted and the learned Vakil for the opposite party has not been able to show from the record that the plaint was, in reality, defective. We think that the order was not justified upon the record and must be set aside.3. The Rule is made absolute and the case is sent back to the lower Appellate Court so that the appeal may be heard in due course of law.4. The petitioner is entitled to his costs in this Court. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur....
Nuri Mian Vs. Ambica Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.893; 24CriLJ140
Sharfuddin, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 named Nuri Mian against the appellate judgment of the District Judge of Saran, dated the 7th April 1914.2. Ambica Singh, the plaintiff of the suit, sued Nuri Mian and Bansidhar, the two defendants in the suit, to establish his right of pre-emption. His case is that Bansidhar, defendant No. 2, sold his shares in three villages, namely, Maritand, Tola Ghyspur and Tola Pandaypur for Rs. 4,500 to Nuri Mian, defendant No. 1, on the 18th September 1912. In the plaint he alleged that Rs. 7,000 mentioned in the sale-deed as the consideration money is a fictitious amount and that he, on hearing from one Garju, one of his witnesses, for the first time on the 20th September 1912, performed the required ceremonies known as talab muasabat and talab istishhad. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit and traversed the allegations made in the plaint. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit, upon which the plaintiff appealed to the Distr...
Abdul Baby Sadagar Vs. Belay Ali Sadagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.919
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Chittagong dated the 14th January 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The appellant before us obtained a decree for money against one Nawab Ali. The respondent to the appeal was a person who stood surety for the judgment debtor Nawab Ali for the amount of any decree that might be passed against the judgment debtor. A case of that nature is no doubt a simple case; but in view of what happened in the Courts below the matter seems to have created some difficulty. The decree-holder, who is the appellant before us, made an application under the terms of order XXXVIII, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, for attachment before judgment. A Rule was issued and it was made absolute in the ordinary terms that unless the defendant gave security to the satisfaction of the Court, for the amount of any decree that might be passed against him in the suit, his property should be attached. The defend...
Mohamed Ali and ors. Vs. Jnanada Sundari Chowdharani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.577
1. The learned Subordinate Judge has evidently made a confusion of the two cases. They were tried together. In Appeal No. 3748 a question was raised as to a settlement by a co-sharer mulik in respect of his share. In Appeal No. 3495 a question was raised as to a settlement by the plaintiff's own agent. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, says: 'The defendants' case is that they were recognised as tenants by the co-sharer landlords' tahsildar. This is not so in both cases.' The settlement in Appeal No. 3748 is said to have been made by the co-sharer landlords' tahsildar in the presence of his naib and under his direction and the premium paid is said to have been entered in the zemindar's papers. That would not be a settlement by tahsildar. The learned Subordinate Judge then says: 'As no tahsildar had any authority to recognise any sub-division of the holding, the receipt of rent by any tahsildar, if true, cannot give validity to the transfer.' That may be so. A tahsildar or even a n...
imam Ali Patwari Vs. Srimati Arfatunnessa and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1914Cal369(1),32Ind.Cas.707
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights brought by the plaintiff, who is a Muhammadan, against his wife.2. The defence was that at the time of the marriage it was agreed by a kabinnama that the husband would reside with the wife in her parent's house and that in case he did not act according to the agreement, she would have the power to divorce him. Now, the condition in the kabinnama that the husband should live with the wife in her father's dwelling house and if he broke this condition she would be entitled to divorce him, is void under the Muhammadan Law. It was so held by this Court in the suit brought by the respondent against the appellant for a declaration that a divorce made by her was valid, and for recovery of the dower money. [See the case of Imam Ali Patwari v. Arfatunnessa 21 Ind. Cas. 87; 18 C.W.N. 693.] It is contended that that case merely decided that the condition as to divorce is illegal; but that decision was based upon the ground that...
Sheik DoulatuddIn Vs. Dhaniram Chhutia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.804
1. This was a suit by the plaintiff for compelling the defendant to execute a valid sale-deed in respect of certain properties. The defendant, it is said, on the receipt of the consideration money of Rs. 200 executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff which was not registered by the registering officer on account of some defects. Subsequently, it is said, the plaintiff asked the defendant to register a proper deed but he refused. The suit was, therefore, for compelling the defendant to give a valid deed of sale or to refund the consideration money. The Munsif gave a decree. The lower Appellate Court has set aside that decree holding that the defendant was, at the time of the contract, of unsound mind. It is contended in second appeal before us that upon the finding the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the refund of the money paid. Reliance is placed, in support of this contention, on Section 65 of the Contract Act which provides that when an agreement is discovered to be void...
Abdul Hamid and ors. Vs. Udoy Chandra Acharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.614
1. The plaintiff is an occupancy raiyat. One Zamir Khan was an under-raiyat under him under a lease of 1303, which was to last up to 1311 It appears that in or about 1304 Zamir exchanged the land of his sub-raiyati holding with the defendants and put them in possession. It has been found that the plaintiff was aware of this. The plaintiff nevertheless continued receiving rent of this holding in the name of Zamir. It was admitted in the case that such a sub-raiyati holding is not transferable without the consent of the raiyat landlord. The exchange was evidently a transfer and the conduct of the parties seems to show that the plaintiff did not treat the exchange as working forfeiture of the rights of Zamir. He, therefore, accepted the exchange as one that was valid and if he did so he accepted the defendants-appellants as his tenants. Having done so, the plaintiff cannot treat the defendants as trespassers and eject then without notice under Clause (6), Section 49, of the Bengal Tenancy...
Dalohand Singhi Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.11
1. This is an appeal from an order of the Special Land Acquisition Judge at Alipore on a reference made by the Collector under Section 49 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that the owner of the house demanded a reference on the point, on the ground that the cutting of the corner of his compound with the whole of one and part of a second godown near the gate would be the acquisition of a part of his house contrary to the provisions of the Act. The learned Collector in making the reference drew attention to the question of what would' be reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the house, but he very properly made the reference in terms of the Section for the determination of the question whether the land proposed to be acquired does or does not form part of the house. The learned Special Land Acquisition Judge appears to have entirely ignored this question, which is the only question he had to decide, and to have based his decision on a clause in Section 49 which...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »