Kolkata Court March 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.
Nishi Kanta Pal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.46
1. In this case we have read the explanation of the Magistrate, but we still adhere to our opinion that the conviction and sentences on the petitioners cannot stand on the grounds on which the Rule was granted. No offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, appears to have been committed. The Rule is made absolute. The fines, if paid, will be refunded....
Bhobatarini Debi Minor by Her Husband and Next Friend Ganesh Chandra S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.38
1. In this cafe it appears that a widow of the name of Charubala Devi died sometime in October 1914. Thereafter her father presented to the Court of the District Judge of Alipore a document which he alleged to be the last Will and testament of the deceased Charubala Devi and applied for Probate thereof. In his application he stated, as the law requires, the names of the relatives of the deceased, these relatives being in this case two daughters. One of the daughters thereupon appeared and intimated her intention of opposing the application for Probate. She did so in a petition on which she affixed an 8-annas stamp. The learned District Judge was of opinion that this petition was in the nature of a caveat and so required a stamp of 5 rupees under Article 12, Schedule JI of the Court Fees Act. He, therefore.refused to accept the petition of objection and having refused that petition proceeded to deal with the application for Probate ex parte. His order granting Probate after these ex par...
Shama Kanta Chatterjee and Co. Vs. Kusum Kumari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.571
Fletcher, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs' firm to recover Rs. 10,456-5-3 for price of goods sold and delivered to the husband of the defendant. The dealings are alleged to have taken place between the 23rd September 1911 and 22nd November 1913. Certain sums were paid in part payment of the amounts, leaving a balance of Rs. 7,877-5-3 due for principal and Rs. 2,579 for interest, calculated at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum up to the 19th December 1914, aggregating to Rs. 10,456-5-3, the amount claimed in this suit. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff company has frankly admitted in conducting the case, as presented, that the plaint alleges that the whole of the cause of action arose within the local limit of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. That is manifest both from the statement in paragraph 1 and in paragraph 6 of the plaint. The plaintiff alleges in both paragraphs that the whole of the cause of action arose within the local limits of the. Ord...
Nafar Chandra Pal Chowdhury Vs. Rahaman Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.45
1. These 31 appeals arise out of suits for rent.2. The plaintiff-landlord sued 62 tenants of village Andulia on the basis of a measurement and a rent-roll prepared in accordance thereunder in the year 1891. His case was that rents had been paid in accordance with the rent-roll from the years 1891 to 1906. When in the latter year he demanded agreements for the payments of enhanced rents, the tenants declined to make any payments whatever, and he was, therefore, compelled to sue.3. The defence was that in 1891 the tenants were raiyats with rights of occupancy, that the rentals entered in the rent-roll represented illegal and excessive enhancements contravening the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that they had never consented to the rent-roll, and had never paid the rents entered therein.4. In the Court of first instance the 62 suits were tried in 3 groups or batches and were all decreed. In 31 cases the appeals to the District Judge followed, in 28 of these cases the ...
Beni Madhab Sarkar Vs. Gobinda Chandra Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.165
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Alipur rejecting a plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to comply with an order of the Court requiring him to supply the requisite stamp paper or Court-fees. The appeal also involves the question of the propriety of an order putting the plaintiff to his election as regards his claim in respect of moveable properties and his claim in respect of immoveables. On both these questions we are of opinion that the Courts below have fallen into error, and the error is obviously due to the fact that they have treated this suit as a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property and a suit for recovery of possession of moveable property. It is not a suit for recovery of possession. We have examined the plaint and we find that it is clearly a suit for partition, and in his plaint the plaintiff has very properly included the whole of his claim, that is to say, the whole of the properties which are alleged by him ...
Bhuben Behari Nag Mazumdar Vs. Dhirendra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.581
1. These two applications arise out of proceedings for the setting aside of a certain Court sale.2. The sale was held on the 22nd April 1912 and was confirmed on the 23rd of May of that year.3. Sometime towards the close of 1913 the judgment-debtor applied under Order XXI, Rule 90, to have the sale set aside.4. This application came on for hearing on the 25th July 1914 when both parties, i.e., the judgment-debtor and the auction-purchaser applied for time. Both applications were rejected, and the petitioner taking no farther steps his application was dismissed for default.5. On the 28th July, the petitioner applied that the order should be reviewed and his application for setting aside the sale restored. This application for review or restoration was dismissed or rejected on the 15th January 1915.6. Against both orders of rejection or dismissal appeals were preferred to the District Judge. Both appeals were decreed on the 25th July 1915.7. The auction-purchaser has now obtained the pre...
Nagendra Nath Sen and anr. Vs. J. Vas Esqr. I.C.S. District Magistrate ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.547
1. We are of opinion that the learned Judge in the Court of Appeal below was perfectly justified in holding on the facts which we cannot go behind that the election was invalid and null and void, and that the Commissioner was justified in taking the action he did. We do not think that any evidence should have been allowed to vary the recorded voting paper which, on the fane of it, shows the election to be invalid and void.2. The principle that when the number of votes recorded exceeds the maximum that can be given the election must be invalid and void seems to us a perfectly sound one, and one that cannot be controverted in the case of any elective body, especially where there are no rules, as in this particular case, providing for any such contingencies That being so, the appeal must be dismissed with separate costs to the two sets of respondents who have appeared. We assess the hearing tee at two gold mohurs for each set.3. An application was made to the Court for review of the foreg...
Satis Ranjan Das and ors. Vs. Nasaraddi Patwari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.145
1. Two points have been argued in this case. The first is that the decree-holder, having parted with his interest as landlord in the property in respect of which arrears were claimed by him, was not a landlord of defendant at the time when he brought his suit and that, therefore, the suit was not one between a landlord and tenant within the meaning of Article 6, Schedule III, of the Bengal Tenancy Act; and, secondly, that even if the Article applied, the judgment-debtor, not having objected to previous executions after the expiry of three years under the special law of limitation, was precluded from taking that objection again.2. Upon the first point, we think that the learned Vakil is right in his contention and he is supported by the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Arthur Henry Forbes v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh 23 Ind Cas. 632 : 41 C. 926 (P.C.) : 18 C.W.N. 747 : 15 M.L.T. 380 : (1914) M.W.N. 397 : 12 A.L.J. 653 : 27 M.L.T. 4 : 1 L.W. 1059. The decree-holder, having parted...
Afiladdi Vs. Satish Chandra Banerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.497
1. The predecessor of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 obtained a permanent tenure from the plaintiff. One of the conditions of the lease was that the defendants should not transfer the tenure and that if they did, the plaintiff should be entitled to re-enter. Eventually, the defendants sold the tenure to defendant No. 7. The plaintiff brought the present suit for ejectment and in accordance with the terms of Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, he, specified the sum of Rs. 566-4 as reasonable compensation for the breach of the condition.2. The Munsif found that the breach was not capable of remedy; but he found that a sum of Rs. 250 would be reasonable compensation for the breach of the condition. He allowed the defendants a fortnight's time within which to pay that sum, failing which the plaintiff was to get Khas possession. He also directed that the defendant No. 7 would be recognised as the plaintiff's tenant. The plaintiff appealed. The Subordinate Judge, while agreeing that the breach of...
Beni Rai Vs. Natabar Sirkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.975
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Beni Rai, the 5th defendant, against the decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura which was in favour of the plaintiff. There is also a cross-objection on behalf of the plaintiff.2. The facts are as follows:3. On the 11th November 1898 Girish Roy, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff, the land hypothecated being described as panchaki mokarari jamai, which may be translated as a tenancy right held at a fixed 'quit rent,' which is capable of being transferred. The mortgagor at the time had a mere Ghatwali tenure which was not transferable.4. In August 1910, Girish acquired the 'mokarari' right in the property and at some time between the last-mentioned date and 13th July 1602 Girish died.5. On the 13th July 1902, defendant No. 1, one of the sons of Girish, sold his share in the property to defendant No. 3 without any mention of the mortgage, and ft has been found that defendant No. 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »