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.
Abdul Hakim Gazi Vs. Panchi Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.849
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of 13 plots of land measuring 20 lights 14 cottas on declaration of the plaintiff's right as auction-purchaser thereto. Three persons Arif, Khater and Dhari called Dwarika in the record had a jama of Rs. 24. This was split up by partition recognised by the landlords and the jama of Rs. 16 fell to Arif and Khater and one of Rs. 8 to Dwarika. The plaintiff purchased these jamas at sales in execution for their own rent brought by the malkis. He purchased the smaller jama on the 16th February 1903 and the larger jama on the 21st July 1903. The whole jama had been mortgaged by way of conditional sale to one Jadab Sirdar, defendant No. 16, we are told in 1885, but there is nothing in the paper-book to show this and in 1 903 the mortgagees sued the mortgagors and made the plaintiff a party. On the 5th May 1903, a solenamah was filed by all the mortgagors-defendants purporting to be also signed by the plain...
The Hon'ble Maharaja Ranajit Sinha Vs. Sajjad-Ahmad Chowdhary and Anr. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.922
1. This appeal arises out of a claim made by the plaintiffs as patnidars of land under the provisions of Act I of 1894 to the compensation money which has been taken away by the appellant, Maharaja Ranajit Sinha. Both the lower Courts decreed the claim and in appeal it is urged that the doctrine of res judicata applies, that the respondent Sajjad Ahmed Chowdhry patnidar was a party to the reference in the Land Acquisition Court and that he did not press his claim to any part of the compensation.2. It appears to us that at law this contention must prevail. The observations of Mr. Justice Mookerjee in the case of Bhandi Singh v. Ramadhin Roy (3) apply to this case and do not confine the decision, as was sought to be argued by the learned Vakil for the respondent, to the case of a person who himself obtains the reference from Collector. It is true that in that particular case the parties who were held to be barred had themselves obtained the reference, but the law as laid down by the Cour...
Banku Chandra Bose and anr. Vs. Marium Begum and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.804
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. I am of opinion that the preliminary point which Mr. Sarkar took on behalf of the respondents, the plaintiffs, is a good one.2. The order is set out at pages 25 and 26 of the paper-book, and the material part of it is in these terms:- 'it is ordered that upon the said Syed Ashrufuddin Ahmed within three weeks from the date hereof paying to the defendants' attorney Babu Virendra Nath Mitra the sum of Rs. 250 towards the defendants' costs of and incidental to this application on the Said Babu Birendra Nath Mitra undertaking to refund any surplus that may be found to have been paid in excess upon taxation of the said costs and within one month from the date hereof giving security for 2,500 to the satisfaction of the Registrar the said order in so far as it dismissed this suit for want of prosecution be set aside and this suit be restored to its file.' Then, 'it is further ordered that the said Syed Ashrufuddin Ahmed do pay to the defendants their costs of and in...
Emperor Vs. Aushi Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.828
1. This is a reference under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, in the matter of Aushi Bibi who was charged before the Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca and a Jury with offences under Sections 302/115 and 328/116, Indian Penal Code. The case against Aushi Bibi was that she suspected an intrigue between her husband and Adarjan. She accordingly gave a powder, which was subsequently found to contain arsenic, to Chandra Ban, a girl of 13 years of age, the wife of Jarip. This girl was a relation of the accused. Aushi Bibi told Chandra Ban to give the powder to Adarjan by mixing it with lime in a pan or by mixing it with rice. The powder which was wrapped up in a red paper was taken by Chandra Ban; and as her aunt Nekjan came to the bari shortly afterwards, she showed it to her aunt and told her what had happened. Nekjan told her not to give it to Adajan but to throw it away. Nekjan tested some of it by putting it in water when it is said to have become dark. Chandra Ban also said that N...
Jnanada Sundari Ghowdhurani Vs. Abdur Rahman Bhaia and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.148
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. The question which was referred to this Court relates to a preliminary point as to whether there was a second appeal under the circumstances of this case, and it is stated at page 2 of the paper-book before me as follows: 'When in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the Settlement Officer is asked to increase the rent under Sub-section (4) in accordance with the rules laid down in Section 52, and the claim is refused, on appeal to the Special Judge, on the ground that the land of the tenant is not proved to be in excess of the area for which rent has been previously paid, is a second appeal barred by Section 109A of the Act?'2. The Settlement Officer had decided that the tenants were in possession of land which, was in excess of the area mentioned in the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement provided that the landlord could have the land measured within the term, and if the area or the classification was found to be wrong, the tenant ...
Puran Chandra Trivadi-plaintiff Vs. Chandra Moni Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.49
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the reference to us by the two learned Judges, which is set out at page 4 of the paper-book, is 'whether a co-sharer landlord who has purchased a non-transferable occupancy-holding in execution of a decree for his share of the rent is competent to question the validity of the title, of a previous transferee of the holding from the tenant, such transfer not having been recognised by the landlord.'2. In my judgment, and I think all my learned brothers agree, apparently there has been a misconception of the facts of this case, and when they are correctly appreciated, the point which is involved in this, reference does not arise at all, because it now appears that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 were tenants in respect of one-half only of an occupancy-holding which was not transferable and the plaintiff No. 1 has purchased their interest. Therefore, the most the plaintiff No. 1 has purchased is the one-half share only, and under those circumstances there...
Pramotha Nath Roy Choudhry and anr. Vs. Rani Dinomoni Choudhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.858
1. Order XXII, Rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code has application to cases in which during the pendency of a suit, the interest is assigned, created or devolves and an application is made for the leave of the Court for the continuance of the suit in favour of or against a person in whose favour such an assignment, creation or devolution has operated. Against the order made by the Court on such application there is an appeal provided by Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (1). In this case the plaintiff did not make any application for being allowed to continue the suit in consequence of any assignment, creation or devolution of interest in her favour. She contests the suit on the ground that there was no devolution of any interest, but that the interest which she possessed had been maintained in consequence of a certain agreement with the father of the son she had adopted pending the suit. We have nothing to do with the merits of the question that arises upon the adoption or agreement. All t...
Upendra Mohansaha Chowdhary and ors. Vs. Brindaban Behari Saha Promani ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.188
D. Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act made by some creditors of the insolvent, on the allegation that the insolvent had within two years of the insolvency order made a fraudulent transfer of his property. Upon notice to the transferees the learned Judge held that the proper person to make an application under Section 36 is the Receiver only and that, therefore, the creditors must move the Receiver to make an application. Subsequently he received a report from the Receiver supporting the application of the appellants and also making an allegation against the insolvent. He then sent the case down to the Munsif of Tangail for an enquiry. Upon perusal of the report of the Munsif, he ordered regarding the properties mentioned in 5a and 5b of the report to call upon all persons interested in the case to show cause why the said properties should not be included in the list of assets of the insolvent and sold by the Recei...
In Re: Gobardhan Seal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.435
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a petition by Sreemutty Rai Kissori Dassi that certain transfers should be set aside and should be held to be void as against the Official Assignee.2. The petitioner was the mother-in-law of the insolvent, and the transfers in question were, first of all, a conveyance by the insolvent to his wife which was dated the '9th of November 1911, and, secondly, a conveyance from the insolvent's wife dated the 12th of October 1912 to the appellant, who is the sister-in-law of the insolvent, she being the wife of the insolvent's brother.3. Now, apparently the mother-in-law, the petitioner, filed a suit against the insolvent in the Small Cause Court for its. 1,942 on the 7th of September 1911. The proceedings in that suit occupied a considerable time, as far as I understand, and the judgment was not in fact obtained until the 23rd of February 1912. On the 27th of February 1912, the insolvent against whom the judgment was obtained filed his petition, and he was ...
Asadali Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Syed Mahammad HossaIn Chowdhury and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.177
1. Fending an application for the appointment of a common manager under the Bengal Tenancy Act, the learned District Judge appointed a Receiver. This Rule was issued upon an application by the petitioner that the order, made by the learned District Judge, was without jurisdiction in that it was made not in the course of a suit and secondly, it was irregular because it was made without notice to the petitioner. We have heard the learned Vakils on both sides and we think that the Rule must be discharged.2. With regard to the first ground, it is contended that a Receiver can be appointed only in a suit and not in a proceeding of this kind. Order XL, Rule 1, however, does not provide that the appointment of a Receiver should be confined to a suit. The old Section 503 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, did certainly speak of the appointment of a Receiver in a suit, but Rule 1 of Order XL of the present Code has left out the words subject-matter of a suit' and is very general.3. Then Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »