Kolkata Court May 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.
Mr. Jatindra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Sabidannessa Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.36
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case in my judgment this appeal should be allowed.2. The action was brought by the plaintiffs claiming a declaration of their title to, 5/6th share in a certain property and also claiming that on the declaration of that title the plaintiffs should be admitted to joint possession with their co-sharers, and they also claimed mesne profits.3. In the first Court the suit was dismissed altogether. In the second Court the plaintiffs obtained a decree for a declaration of their title and for joint possession with their co-sharers who are defendants Nos. 18 and 19. Defendants Nos. 18 and 19 appealed.4. Mr. Justice Mullick upheld the decree so far as it concerned the title, but held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to joint possession with their co-sharers. The issues in the case were:First: Is the suit barred by limitation? Seconds--Is the suit bad for defect of parties?Third: Is the suit bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action?Fourth: Does th...
Sheikh Yakub and anr. Vs. Tazimuddi Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.842
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the suit was brought by the plaintiffs asking for a declaration of their title, and also that their possession should be confirmed, and further that a decree might be passed in t their favour for a sum of Rs. 49-8-0 by way of mesne profits: and, then the1 plaintiffs went on and claimed in the alternative that if for any reason the Court adjudge the plaintiffs to be dispossessed, or not in possession after the institution of the suit, a decree might be passed for khas possession; and, finally they prayed for any relief which the Court might find' them entitled to according to the principles of equity.2. In my judgment the rights of the parties in this case are plain: It appears that the Courts in this case have decreed the plaintiffs title and there is no dispute about that matter. The present defendants in the year 1907 brought an action against the plaintiffs on the ground that the present plaintiffs had taken away the crops which the defendants...
Tayabullah Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.845
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge of Sylhet. On the 17th January 1916, the petitioner laid a first information, under Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, at Maulavi Bazar Police Station against Karam Shaikh and others and alleged that they had stolen his paddy and had thereby committed a cognizable offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. The Police investigated into the matter and on the 31st January submitted a final report under Section 173, to the effect that the case appeared to be false and that there was no evidence for false prosecution. The Sub-Divisional Officer, on receipt of this report, passed an order on the 12th February in the following terms: complainant to prove his case.' It will be observed that the complainant had not applied to the Magistrate to investigate into the matter. On the 18fch March the Magistrate examined four witnesses and ordered the Police 'to adduce evidence on the 5th Apr...
Mohim Chandra Deb Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Pyari Lal Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.213
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a case in which we had the benefit of a very able and learned argument on behalf of the appellants, but I do not think myself that there is very much difficulty in the case: and, further than that, I think it is directly covered by authority. In the Court of first instance the suit was dismissed. The learned Judge of the first Appellate Court decreed the suit, and Mr. Justice Sharfuddin affirmed that judgment.2. The suit was brought for possession of certain land. The plaintiffs bought at a sale held by the Government for arrears of revenue. The material dates were as follows: the sale was on the 7th of September 1895; the sale was confirmed on the 22nd of November 1895; the certificate was granted on the 8th of October 1896, and symbolical possession was given to the plaintiffs on the 22nd of July 1897. The suit was brought on the 22nd of July 1909, just within twelve years after the date when symbolical possession was given to the plaintiffs.3. Two ...
Akshoy Singh and anr. Vs. Rameswar Bagdi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.515
1. This reference, under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, raises an important question of law which has led to some diversity of judicial opinion.2. The petitioners Akshoy Singh and Akhil Singh wore prosecuted on thecomplaint of one Rameswar Bagdi before the Deputy Magistrate of Burdwan for offences under Sections 447 and 508, Indian Penal Code. They were convicted only under the former section and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each, in default to saffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. There was also an order under Section 545, Criminal Procedure Code, that Rs. 5 out of the fine, if realised, be paid to the complainant as compensation. This sentence, which was passed on the 30th March 1915, was non-appealable. On the 14th April the petitioners moved the Sessions Judge to call for the record and to recommend to this (sic) that the conviction, be set aside the ground amongst others that the case was one of civil dispute and not of criminal trespass. The Sessions Judge ...
Satikantha Banerjee Vs. Ram Chandra Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.556
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. I am of opinion that this Rule should be made absolute, and that the case should go to the Bench which would in the ordinary course have jurisdiction over the matter, so that that Bench may consider all the facts which are set out in the various affidavits. We have only had the opportunity of reading the facts set out in the affidavit of the 14th of April 1915, filed on behalf of the plaintiff. We now understand that there are other affidavits filed on behalf of the defendants, and the facts in the affidavit of the 14th of April are not accepted but are denied in material respects. Therefore, we think that this matter should go to the Bench as I have already intimated, so that that Court may consider all the facts which are material to the question, whether the time for entering the appeal should be extended. Supposing that that Court comes to the conclusion on the merits that the time for appealing should be extended, then no further question will arise. But...
Munshi Brij Kumar Lal and ors. Vs. Munshi Majlis Sahai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.899
1. In this case Mr. Justice Chapman has confirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge.2. The contention that has been raised before. us is, as there was an express agreement between the parties as set forth in the mortgage-bond that the principal would be paid to the plaintiffs in a lump sum after the expiry of the term of the mortgage-bond, Mr. Justice Chapman has erred in dismissing the appeal after deducting the rent and interest with rests from the principal every year. The appellants who raised this contention did not themselves keep the term of their contract, and what has in effect been done is to adjust the rights of the rival parties according to the nature and spirit of the agreement entered into between them. What was the effect of keeping the money which should have been repaid? The answer is, we think, that that money must go to discharge the principal due at the time. That must be taken to be done which should have been done. If the appellants have withheld payment, the...
Laskari and ors. Vs. Abbas Bepari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.411
Sanderson, C.J.1. In these eases the issue which is material for us to consider was framed in the Court of first instance in this way: 'Have the plaintiff and his co-villagers their alleged right of way by necessity, grant or prescription.' Evidence was taken with regard to that issue. When the cases came before the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, he came to the conclusion that the issue which was really material had not been stated in the Court below; and consequently he framed the issue himself, which was in these terms, 'Have the plaintiffs acquired the right of user over the disputed path by virtue of any custom.' He purported to act under Order XLT, Rule 24, Civil Procedure Code, which I need not read; but he purported to deal with it as the re-settling of the issues; and, thereupon, as he thought, having re-settled the issues, he dealt with the cases upon the evidence as it stood, without taking any further evidence or remanding the cases for further evidence. In my j...
Ashutosh Mookherjee and ors. Vs. Akhoy Kumari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.581
1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of two decrees for rent. These decrees were obtained against a Hindu widow and on her death the reversionary heirs of the husband were brought on the record as her representatives for the purposes of the execution. The only questions in these appeals are, whether the holding in respect of which decrees for rent were obtained, being now in the hands of the reversionary heirs, can be sold in execution of decrees obtained, against the widow. In support of his contention that the defaulting holding cannot be sold, the appellant has invited our attention to the cases of Kristo Gobind v. Hem Chunder 16 C. 511 and Bireswar Das Bey v. Kamal Kumar Butt 16 Ind. Cas. 437 : 17 C.W.N. 337. But in these two cases the question for decision was whether the estate of the husband (other than the defaulting tenure) could be sold in execution of such decrees. They, therefore, throw no light upon the present question. On the other hand the case of ...
Satish Chandra Mitra Vs. Jogendra Nath Mahalanobis and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.862
D. Chatterjee, J.1. This was a suit upon a mortgage bond. The defendant No. 1 was the executant of the mortgage and the other defendants derived title to the mortgaged property subsequently by execution and certificate sales. The defendant No. 1, executant of the document, admitted the mortgage-deed and the first Court gave a decree on the basis of the mortgage.2. It appears that defendants Nos. 3 to 5 made an attempt to have the case postponed for the purpose of getting an order of transfer of the case to the Court of the Sub-Judge for trial with another suit in the same matter. Before the order of the District Judge on the application for transfer was recorded the case was disposed of by the learned Munsif, Upon appeal, the learned Sub-Judge remanded the case holding that the document, that is, the mortgage-deed, had not been proved by the examination of any of the attesting witnesses as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act.3. On appeal, it is contended before us that the order...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »