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.
Guru Charan Sarkar Vs. Uma Charan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1916
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.985
Teunon, J.1. The only question in this appeal, is whether matters heard and, determined in proceedings under the Second Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code Clause 21 may be re-opened in a subsequent suit between the same parties and brought for the purpose of setting aside the award and the decree following upon the judgment pronounced in accordance therewith.2. We have little difficulty in answering this question in the negative.3. Even under the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 it was held by the Full Bench in the case of Mahomad Wahiduddin v. Haki-man 25 C. 757 : C.W.N. 529 : 13 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 494 (F.B.) that an order refusing to file an, award was a decree. In Clause 21 of the Second Schedule it is now expressly provided that an order filing an award shall be followed by a judgment and a decree.1 These provisions and the further provisions in Section 26 that a suit may be instituted otherwise than by presentation of a plaint, make it clear that a proceeding under Clause 21 of the Se...
Maharaja Adhiraj Sir Bijoy Chand Mohatab Bahadur Vs. Iswar Chandra Das ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.60
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the appeal, in my judgment, mast be dismissed, for the following reasons: it is necessary to state the facts shortly:--The action was brought by the plaintiffs for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that they were entitled to the tank in question, and that a writ of possession should be granted to them. On the other hand, the defendant No. 1 set up three points: First, that the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs about the possession of the tank should not be believed; secondly, that, even if believed, the possession was not of such a character as to show that it was adverse to the defendant No. 1; and 'thirdly, that, before the defendant No. 1 acquired the patni tenure of Lot Baisgram the possession of the plaintiffs and their lessors was not adverse to him as Mauza Kamalpur was held by patnidars under the Maharaja of Burdwan. It appears that there were two patnidars, whose patnis were adjoining, the Hazrahs on the one hand and Gisbourne & Co...
Harish Chandra Bose Vs. Ram Gobinda Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.584
John Wooroffe, J.1. I agree with Mr. Justice Newbould in holding that a person cannot obtain the benefit of Section 171 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the ground of being an unregistered co-sharer in the occupancy holding against the registered holder of which the decree for rent was obtained. In making his application for depositing the money, the appellant described himself as the malih in the raiyati holding. Mr. Justice Newbould says that it is not quite clear whether he is a mortgagee or not. The position of the appellant, however, is this, that he is not the mortgagee or an assignee of the mortgagee, but he is a purchaser of the mortgage-decree, that is to say, he purchased the right to execute the decree against the mortgagor. Apart from this Mr. Justice Newbould has pointed out that the plaintiff did not claim in his plaint to hold the land as mortgagee and the deposit was not made under that title but under that of malih.2. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with cost...
Kobbat Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.698
1. In this case the learned Additional District Magistrate in giving his judgment said that the evidence for the prosecution was, on the whole, slightly stronger and that the story, as regards probability, was far more likely. This is not sufficient for a conviction in a criminal case and we think that unless he could come to some more definite opinion he ought to have acquitted the accused. We accordingly set aside his order and direct that the appeal be re-heard. The petitioner will remain on the same bail pending the re-hearing of the appeal....
Jagat Bijoy Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. Tomijuddi Howladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.228
1. There can be no doubt that the testator in this case intended that his wife and daughter and daughter's daughter should each have an absolute interest in the property, and that, as far as possible, so long as anybody descended from himself was in existence, Gouribijoy or his descendants should have no interest in the property.2. There is, however, a provision of law, namely, Section 111 of the Succession Act, which has been applied to the Wills of Hindus and which seems to be contravened in giving full force to the intention of the testator. That section provides: 'Where a legacy is given if a specified uncertain event shall happen, and no time is mentioned in the Will for the occurrence of that event, the legacy cannot take effect unless such event happens before the period when the fund bequeathed is payable or distributable. ' Now, if this section applies, the respondent is out of Court.3. The respondent, however, contends that this section does not apply, because it speaks of th...
Etim Haji Vs. Hamid
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.312
1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Dacca, under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Cede. The petitioner Etim Haji lodged a complaint against one Hamid and others under Sections 426 and 447, Indian Penal Code. After a preliminary enquiry an order was passed on 10th February 1916 summoning the accused Hamid for trial of an offence under Section 426, Indian Penal Code. The case was fixed to be heard on the 7th March 1916 in the Court of Mr. P. M. Sen, Deputy Magistrate, Dacca. On that date, both the complainant and the accused appeared before Mr. Sen with their respective witnesses. The Deputy Magistrate thereafter recorded the following order in the order sheet: 'Five witnesses for prosecution and five witnesses for defence. To Sadar Bench for favour of disposal.' The case was taken up later on in the day by Mr. R. N. Das and Mr. K. Azimullah, who formed the Bench of Magistrates to whom the case had been transferred. The complainant and his muktears were called ...
Sashi Bhusan Hazrah Vs. Srimati Deno Moyee Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.301
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Teunon.2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for arrears of rent. The defendant pleaded that rent was not payable at the rate claimed. The Court of first instance decreed the claim in full. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge set aside the decree of the primary Court and remanded the case for a fresh trial, with full liberty to the parties to adduce whatever evidence they might like to bring forward in support of their respective allegations. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to this Court against the order of remand. The appeal was heard by Mr. Justice Teunon and was dismissed. The present appeal is directed against the decision of Mr. Justice Teunon.3. The suit was valued at less than one hundred rupees. Consequently under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, no appeal lay against the order of the Subordinate Judge, unless it was established that the Subordinate Judge...
Putikaharini Vs. Vice-chairman of the Vishnupur Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.336
1. In this case before there could be a conviction under Section 345 of the Bengal Municipal Act (III of 1884), the prosecution would have to prove that the Magistrate on an application of the Commissioners had ordered the land to be closed as a market-place and had taken order o prevent such land being so used. This, it is conceded for the Municipality, was not shown in this case. The conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner must be set aside and the fine, if paid, will be refunded....
Chandra Kanta Kanjilal and anr. Vs. Emperor on the Complaint of Parbat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.144
1. We have heard the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer who shows cause in this case on behalf of the Magistrate; bat we think that the proceedings now commenced under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, are defective for more than one reason. In the first place, the order as made under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 9th December 1915 ought never to have been made. A servant of the first party presented a petition to the Sub-Divisional Officer, in which he complained that the second party had made arrangements to construct a pucca drain obliterating a pathway and for that purpose they had collected a large number of sirdars and lathials and that if the defendants obliterated the said pathway or constructed a drain there and if the first party opposed them, then there would be a likelihood of a serious breach of the peace. The Magistrate took no evidence and had nothing before him in which to make the necessary record of the material facts of the case,...
Mohammad BeajuddIn Ahmad Vs. Basuda Sundari Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1916
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.330
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In my judgment this appeal should be dismissed. The question really depends upon the construction which is to be put upon the lease of the 19th of March 1879. The learned Vakil who has argued this case for the appellant admits that the tenure which was thereby created is a permanent and heritable tenure, and, therefore, it would come within the passage to which I drew his attention just now, in the case of Nil Madhab Sikdar v. Narattam Sikdar 17 C. 826 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1095. The passage is at page 828 and is as follows : 'Moreover, it seems doubtful whether, when a landlord grants a permanent and heritable tenure in land, he has any estate left in him, unless he reserves to himself a right of re-entry or reversion for it has been held in the case of Sonet Kooer v. Himmut Bahadoor 1 C. 391 : 25 W.R. 239 : 3 I.A. 92 : 3 Sar. P.C.J. 608 : 3 Suth. P.C.J. 257 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 245 that in the case of the grant of an absolute hereditary mokurrari tenure it w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »