Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 37Ind.Cas.707
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the action was brought by the plaintiff claiming the sum of Rs. 2,500 and interest, and also for a declaration that the shares, which have been called in this case the Equitable' shares, should be charged with the repayment of the said sum of Its. 2,500 and also for the recovery of the said shares. The action was brought against Nikkamull Khetry the 1st defendant who did not appear, and, therefore, the case proceeded, so far as he was concerned, ex parte. The other defendant was Lalit Mohun Nundy, and he is the defendant who has appealed against the decision of the learned Judge.2. The learned Judge has directed that as far as this 4efendant (the 2nd defendant) is concerned, the shares in question are charged with the repayment of Rs. 2,500.3. It is to be noticed in the first instance that the claim put forward by the plaintiff was that he had but advanced the said sum of Rs. 2,500 to Nikkamull Khetry on the 27th of March 1913. It turns out upon the evide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 35Ind.Cas.557
1. In this case the original plaintiff Kasimji Adamji, whose heirs are now the plaintiffs on the record, sued for a declaration that the decree in Suit No. 188 of 1899 in the Court of the fourth Munsif of Howrah and the execution proceedings resulting on that decree should be set aside as fraudulent, and the plaintiff confirmed in possession of the land described in the schedule to the plaint. The sole question arising in this second appeal is whether the present suit is barred by reason of an order under Section 108 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 dismissing an application of the present plaintiff to set aside the ex parte decree in Suit No. 188 of 1899. The Court of first instance found that there was no fraud on the part of defendant No. 1 in obtaining the ex parte decree, and that no payment was made to the defendant No, 2, as alleged, for the purpose of getting the suit withdrawn. As to the execution proceedings, that Court was of opinion that no fraud had been established. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.106
1. In this case the plaintiffs, who are sons of Bhubaneswar Roy Chowdhury, sued to recover possession of certain immoveable properties on the strength of a conveyance, dated 18th April 1897, executed by Purna Chander Chatterji in favour of Behari Lal Mitter--the benatnidar of the plaintiffs' father. Plaintiffs' case was that the Roy Chowdhury defendants, in collusion with their agent Purna Chander Chatterji, who was father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, created two fictitious nimosat howlas and thus interfered with Bhubaneswar Roy Chowdhury's right in the lands in question. Bhubaneswar Roy Chowdhury brought a suit, No. 597 of 1896, in the Subordinate Judge's Court against Purna Chander Chatterji and the Roy Chowdhury defendants to recover possession in howla right and to have the fictitious nimosat howlas cancelled. That suit was settled through the intervention of Rakhal Das Bidyabhusan, the guru thakur of both the parties. The conveyance in favour of Bebari Lal Mitter as benamidar for B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.337
1. The only point of law arising in this appeal is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the landlords were not estopped from disputing the plaintiffs' interest in the holding. Plaintiffs' title is based on the purchase of a moiety of a holding from defendant No. 10. In two subsequent rent suits brought by the landlords, defendants Nos. 1 to 7, against the recorded tenants, the property was put up for sale in execution. In the sale which took place in 1904 the plaintiffs deposited the money to save the sale and that deposit was withdrawn by the landlords. The question is, whether there was anything in the making of that deposit which would bring to the landlords' notice the fact that the plaintiffs were interested in the holding and were claiming such interest. It is now conceded by the learned Pleader for the plaintiffs-appellants that all that appeared on that occasion was the plaintiffs' names in the challan. There was no suggestion then made that the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 35Ind.Cas.951
1. The plaintiff is a British Indian subject, a tailor in the town of Dacca. The defendant, a subject of the German Emperor, was a photographer in that town, [n November 1914, i.e., after the declaration of war with Germany, the plaintiff did some tailoring work for the defendant, and the present suit was brought for the recovery of wages, etc., due on that account. The question referred is whether such a suit would lie during the pendency of the war. We think the suit would lie, and there is nothing in law to prevent its being tried before the restoration of peace.2. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil, nature, excepting suits the cognizance of which is expressly or impliedly barred. Section 83 provides that alien enemies residing in British India with the permission of the Governor-General in Council may sue in the Courts of British India, but an alien enemy residing in British India without such permissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.130
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioners on the 23rd of March 1914 consigned two bundles of cotton-thread at the Dacca Station of the Eastern Bengal State Railway for conveyance to one Gobindo at Narsingdih. The goods did not reach the consignee and information was given to the District Traffic Superintendent on the 25th of May 1914. On the 5th of June 1914, they gave notice to the Traffic Manager of the Railway at Sealdah that if they did not get delivery within a week they would bring a suit. The petitioners say that they gave this notice in accordance with the following rule printed and published in the Fare and Time Table of the Eastern Bengal State Railways: Reference regarding delay in transit to or loss of goods, parcels, luggage or other articles and claims for compensation and refunds should be addressed to the Traffic Manager, Calcutta.' They also say that the said Railway has no officer who is called the Manager but there is one called the Agent. On the 1st August 1914, they serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 36Ind.Cas.530
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage-bond. Ram Nara Singha, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and Ramdhan, the husband of defendant No. 3, jointly executed a mortgage-bond in favour of Baikuntha Sarvagya, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, for a lean of Rs. 500. By this bond the two mortgagors hypothecated the properties set out in the schedule to the plaint, of which each owned an eight anna share. The bond was executed on the 4th Bhadro 1304 B. Section and stipulated for interest at the rate of 13 annas 4 pies per cent, per mensem compound interest with yearly rests. The plaintiff alleged that Rs. 146 was realised by him on different dates and that on an account being made up on the 22nd Bhadro 1317 B. Section the sum of Rs. 1,138 was found due by the defendants. The defendant No. 3 admitted liability on her husband's account, for half this amount. The plaintiffs gave her a remission of some of the amount due and released her from liability under the mor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 36Ind.Cas.119
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the price of jute supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The jute, while it was in the custody of the defendants in their godowns, caught fire and was burnt, and the question is whether the plaintiffs or the defendants are to bear the loss. The determination of that question depends upon whether or not property in the goods had passed to the defendants, before they were destroyed by fire.2. The plaintiff and the defendants carried on business in jute at Chandpur, where there are many big firms who deal in jute. The plaintiffs, who are called 'Fariahs' in the locality used, to purchase loose jute from dealers (beparis) and supply it to the defendants' firm.3. The plaintiffs in their plaint set up an express contract with the defendants, the terms whereof are stated to be as follows:That the plaintiffs would purchase loose jute for the defendants during the jute season, and that the latter would take the said jute from the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.111
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and relates to a sum of Rs. 2-3-6 interest on the cess payable for the Assin hist, 1320. Defendantsare tenure-holders under the plaintiff and their rent is payable in three kists under their kabuliyat which is dated 1&79 before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act or the Cess Act. In that kabuliyat they undertook to pay any cesses which might be imposed by Government. The cess for the Assin kist admittedly amounts to Rs. 424-7-6. It became due on 1st Kartic 1320 (18th October 1913). On that day the Courts were closed. There had been correspondence between the parties and there had also been previous trouble in the matter of the acceptance of the rent-Defendants accordingly informed the plaintiff that they would pay the amount into Court on the day the Court re-opened, which was 1st November 1913 (15th Kartic 1320). On that day the defendants made the deposit now in question, and later on the same day the plaintiff filed his suit for rent and cesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 36Ind.Cas.655
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, who are the executrix and executors of the estate of one Bhuban Chunder Bhur deceased, and the claim is in respect of an agreement for sale dated the 23rd of January 1910, which was made between the first and the second defendants and Bhuban. CImnder Bhur, which related to the shares of those defendants in certain premises known as Nos. 10, 12 and 13 Darmabatta street. The defendants, other than the first and the second, who may be called the Nandi defendants, were the purchasers of the shares of the first and the second defendants in the premises, under circumstances to which I will refer later in more detail.2. The claim is for specific performance, and, in the alternative, damages.3. The first defendant is the widow of Hari Charan Sett, and the second defendant is the widow of Sattya Charan Sett. These two men were the owners in equal shares of premises No. 10, and between them they owned a share in Nos. 12 and 13, whic...
Tag this Judgment!