Kolkata Court February 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.
Bharat Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Ramananda Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.862
Beachcroft, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent brought this suit for declaration of his title to and possession of a 2-annas share, in the residuary chak of thak No. 3450 of Mauza Rampasha, as appertaining to the Taluq No. 24775-59, Benode Ram Gopal, which he had purchased at an auction sale and of which he alleged that the defendants had prevented him from taking possession. He also asked for mesne profits. He stated in his plaint that the other 14 annas of the mauza appertained to 5 other taluqs of which he gave details.2. Written statements were filed by various sets of defendants and a number of issues framed by the first Court, of which the most important seem to have been whether a 2-annas share of any land in Mauza Rampasha appertained to the plaintiff's taluq and as to liability of various defendants for mesne profits.3. The Subordinate Judge made a decree declaring plaintiffs' title to an undivided 2-annas share of the lands of the residuary chak of the thak map No. 3450 of Mauza R...
Hari Singh and ors. Vs. Sant Prosad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.969
Mullick, J.1. Hari Singh and Tipan Singh bought an estate at a revenue auction sale in 1895 for Rs. 19,100. That sale was set aside and Tipan Singh became entitled after the reversal of the sale to 13/16ths of the auction purchase-money and Hari Singh to the balance. Tipan Singh eventually drew out the whole of the purchase-money and it was necessary for Hari Singh to sue Tipan Singh. He accordingly instituted a suit and obtained a decree against Tipan Singh for his share of the purchase money. In execution of that decree certain ancestral property belonging to Tipan was sold and purchased by Hari Singh. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought by Sant Prosad Singh, son of Tipan Singh, for possession of a half share of the ancestral property which has been purchased by Hari Singh in execution of his decree. The claim is based on the ground that the debt incurred by Tipan Singh was an immoral debt and that, therefore, there was no pious duty on the part of Sant Prosad...
Sheikh Johan Buksh Vs. Sheikh Mohammad Taslim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.963
Sharfuddin, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff. The facts of the case are these. The plaintiff in the suit had a small share in a certain mauza, which was sold in execution of a decree against him and was purchased by defendant No. 2 on the 3rd June 1893. On the 17th August 1904 the defendant No. 2 sold the share to defendant No. 1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for confirmation of his possession with regard to that share on the allegation that the defendant No. 2, although a certified purchaser, was merely a benamidar for him, the plaintiff, and that the transaction of sale between the defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1 was a fraudulent and colourable transaction.2. The first Court without going into evidence dismissed the suit on the ground that Section 66 of the present Civil Procedure Code was a bar to the maintainability of the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Muzafferpore, who dismissed the appeal holding that Section 317 of...
Cassim Ahmed Molla Vs. Eusuf Haji Ajam Pepardi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.221
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal of the defendant from the judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves in which he gave judgment for the plaintiffs, and the first question which arises is stated in this way: whether the notice of ejectment was given by both Receivers, and if not, whether such notice is valid?2. The plaintiffs were Receivers appointed by this Court for the purpose of managing a particular estate, and it is to be noted that in the appointment it is stated ' that they are appointed joint Receivers.'3. The first question which requires attention is, whether the notice which was in fact given was given by both the Receivers.4. The notice itself was dated the 26th of March 1915, and was sent by the attorneys : on the face of it, it was a notice on behalf of both the Receivers, but it appears from the evidence that at the time that the notice was given one of the Receivers, Eusuf Haji Ajam Pepardi, was not in Calcutta, and had not been in Calcutta since the 1st of March, beca...
Baijnath Marwari and anr. Vs. W.S. Street and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.971
1. In this case, after perusing the record and hearing the parties on either side, we think that the Rule should be discharged. It is true with reference to the partition at the close of 1905, which was alleged by the first party and denied by the second, the Magistrate has not recorded any specific finding that that partition did in fact take place or that there was any division of the property by metes and bounds between the predecessors of the two parties now before us. He has, however, found in unmistakable terms that the first party were in possession and that the fact of their possession was not seriously disputed. He calls it throughout actual possession; and his judgment can only be read in the sense that he means it was both actual and exclusive of the other side. The mere fact that there may be a joint title to the land would not prevent the application of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, as is shewn by the case of Basanta Kumari Dasi v. Mohesh Chandra Laha 19 Ind. Cas. ...
Lakurka Coal Company, Ltd. Vs. Jumnadass Bhagwandass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.838
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Colliery Company from a judgment of Chaudhuri J., delivered on 14th April 1915 by which he gave judgment for the plaintiff for Rs. 29,224-3-3 with interest. The claim was based on a contract whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the Colliery Company 6,000 tons of Rubble at Rs. 1-6 and 4,000 tons of Dust at Rs. 1-4 per ton to be delivered from November 1911 to April 1912. It is agreed that the contract quantity has not been delivered and the defendants' contention was that the non-delivery was due to the failure of the supplies of Railway wagons for the conveyance of the coal, for which the defendants allege they were not responsible.2. It appeared that the only method of removing the coal from the colliery was by Railway wagons from the colliery siding, that the colliery had no wagons of their own available for the delivery of coal to their customers but it was the practice for the Colliery Company, in accordance with instruct...
Krishna Chandra Ghose Vs. Rasik Lal Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.568
1. The plaintiff sues for declaration of title to a 9-cotta plot of land and for ejectment. He bases his claim upon a registered kobala executed by one Ramani Dasi, dated the 22nd Jaistha 1292, by which, she sold the southern half portion of a plot of land measuring in all 18 cottas. He complains that the defendants have, under colour of a patta (Exhibit B) alleged to have been granted to their maternal grandmother, Bilas Moyee Dassee, by certain persons hereinafter referred to as the Jugi brothers, dated the 27th Magh 1272, taken possession of a portion of the plot in suit and created structures thereon. The Jugi brothers were tenants under one Beswesar Banerjee. They were in possession of 3 bighas 14 cottas. Their landlord brought a suit in 1866 for enhancement of rent against them and obtained a decree. The landlord asserted that the Jugis held the land without lease and without giving a kabuliyat. The suit was decreed and eventually two of the brothers, namely, Iswar Chandra and Di...
Raghumull Vs. Luchmondas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.278
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant Raghumull from a judgment of Greaves, J., delivered on the 31st May 1915.2. The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant was for damages for breach of an agreement in writing, dated the 8th June 1911, fur money due for under-brokerage under the said agreement for brokerage and profits alleged to be due by reason of a verha arrangement, by which it was alleged the plaintiffs were to receive remuneration for certain transactions on the terms of the written agreement: and for brokerage in respect of other matters set out in the statement of claim.3. It appears that by an agreement dated 31st May 1911, Messrs. David Sassoon & Co. appointed the defendant Raghumull and Juggoomul (who is since dead), trading in the name of Madhoram Hurdeodass, their brokers for the sale and purchase of sugar during the subsistence of that agreement, that is for a period of five years from the date thereof, or for such other period as might be mutual...
Sheikh Umar Ali Vs. Jadu Ram Kapali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.855
1. The plaintiff in this case purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding and thereafter obtained a recognition from some of the co-sharers. The defendants had obtained a title, from some other co-sharers. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that he had no title, because the Settlement by a co-sharer landlord does not confer any title with regard to the share of that landlord. We think that the learned Judge is wrong in holding that a settlement by a co-sharer landlord does not confer any title. On the other hand there is Ample authority for saying that a settlement by a co-sharer landlord does confer a right with regard to the share of that landlord. We think, therefore, that the first Court was right in decreeing joint possession to the plaintiff in respect of the share of 15/26ths.2. With regard to the question of limitation, it is clear from the pleading and the proceedings in the Court below that the plaintiff was in possession in...
Nirod Krishna Ghose and ors. Vs. Maharaja Bahadur Sir Produt Kumar Tag ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.794
1. In a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent, the tenants relied upon receipts for 20 years to show uniform payment of rent as a basis for the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The landlord adduced evidence of jama wasilbaki papers more than 70 years old, and the lower Appellate Court, upon a consideration of these papers with the other evidence, has held that they have the effect of rebutting the said presumption raised by the proof of uniform payment of rent for 20 years.2. It is contended that these papers were not admissible as independent evidence and that in any case under Section 34 of the Act they could not be relied upon as imposing a liability to enhancement upon the rent paid by the defendants. In the first place the papers are more than 70 years old and their genuineness can be presumed under Section 90 of the Evidence Act and in the second place, they cover a very long period and the lower C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »