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.
Ananda Mohan Saoa and ors. Vs. Ananda Chandra Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.182
John Woodroffe, J.1. This appeal has been heard at great length. The point which is raised is a simple one. The suit was brought on a mortgage-bond of Rs. 200. The defence which has been found to be false is that money was not borrowed, that the bond was not executed or registered as the plaintiff alleges, but that the defendant with a view to defraud his own creditors got up a sham mortgage and in order that the benami character of this transaction should not be discovered, he made it over to the plaintiff who has taken advantage of the fact. Subsequently, it is alleged that there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant about some tin-shed and other matters and the plaintiff then put in force this mortgage against the defendant. The defendant alleges that there was no consideration. It is further alleged that when the mortgage-bond was in possession of the plaintiff, the mortgage interest being in terms Re. 1 per mensem, the plaintiff fraudulently inserted the words per ...
Krishna Charan Barman and ors. Vs. Sanat Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.609
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This case, in my judgment, raises a question of considerable importance, and we are much indebted to the three learned Vakils, who have argued the question before us, for their assistance.2. It appears that so long ago as 1897, the mortgage in question was executed by six individuals, some of whom are defendants, and the others are now dead and their representatives are the other defendants in this case.3. The mortgage was to secure a loan of Rs. 200, and it contained a provision that the loan should be repaid within two months with interest at the rate of one anna in the rupee per mensem, and in case of default the interest was to run at that rate till payment. Each of the six borrowers mortgaged a hal of land to secure the loan. Certain payments were made by some of these six individuals, so that the result was that within a little more than six years from the date of the loan, the lender received Rs. 463, that is to say, the whole of his principal Rs. 200 ...
Durga Das Khan and ors. Vs. Ishan Chandra Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.223
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is a suit between two purchasers. The plaintiffs represent the purchaser from the heir of the property in dispute, and the defendants the purchaser from the sons of a legatee of this property. The original owner was the husband of one Bhubaneswari Debi. After his death and that of her son, Surjya Kumar, she succeeded to a woman's estate in the property. By a Will which she executed, she recited the her son Kali Kumar was a person of dissolute habits and that it was not desirable that her property should go to him. She accordingly left it to her daughter, Surat Kumari, with a proviso that if male children should be born to Kali Kumar, then on their attaining 25 years the said son or sons should succeed to the whole estate. This Will is admittedly invalid, because the testatrix had no interest of which she could dispose by Will, and it further contains an ineffectual bequest to unborn grandsons. Under it her daughter Surat Kumari entered into p...
Bidhumukhi Chowdhurani Vs. Asmatulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1916
Reported in: AIR1914Cal893,36Ind.Cas.669
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In my judgment this case raises a point of some interest.2. It appears that on the 30th of April 1900, the zemindar Maharajah, who was the putnidar, got a decree for durpatni rent, and the result of that was that on the 25th of January 1907, the plaintiff at the execution sale which was held under the decree, purchased the durpatni interest, and thereupon the plaintiff gave a notice under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to Bhairab, with reference to the se-patni interest which was in him at that time. That se-patni estate had been created by Juggomohan in the year 1886.3. Now, the suit was brought in this case by the plaintiff against the defendants, the occupancy-holders, for rent. They set up the defence that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for rent, the first ground for that defence being that the se-patni interest which was in Bhairab had not in fact been put an end to, and the 'reason why they said it was not put an end to, was that it was a ...
Peari Mohan Kundu Vs. Mohini Kanta Saha Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.855
1. This is a matter which arises out of proceedings in a partition suit.2. A Commissioner was appointed for making the partition without, however, settling his fees. On the 22nd December 1913, the order of the Subordinate Judge was as follows: 'None of the parties turned up. So the Commissioners' remuneration could not be settled. They will begin work at once and the remuneration matter will be put up on the 2nd January 1914.' The matter was put up later on the 5th January and it was decided that only one Commissioner, namely Babu Pyari Mohan Kutidu, should be appointed. Then on the 29th May 1914, the Commissioner put in a petition asking for two mopths' time and he was ordered to submit report within the time allowed. The question of his remuneration was left to be considered when the papers were filed and the quantity and quality of his work judged by Court. On the 19th February 1915, the Commissioner's bill was considered and Rs. 3,260 was passed as his fees besides travelling and o...
Dwarika Nath Roy Chowdhury Vs. Mathura Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.833
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the judgment of Mr. Justice Chapman, who dismissed the appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, which affirmed the decree of the learned Munsif.2. The suit was brought for a declaration of title with respect to certain lands and for, the ejectment of defendant No. 5.3. In the statement of claim the plaintiffs claimed a sixteen-annas interest in the said lands but under the decree it was held that their proprietary right was limited to 12 annas. The defendant No. 8 was the owner of the 4-annas interest in the said lands.4. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had held the lands under a lease which was granted by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 8.5. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 mortgaged their interests under the lease to the defendant No. 1.6. In 1893 defendant No. I brought a suit upon the mortgage against the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and obtained a decree.7. On the 21st July 1897 the property was sold under the le...
Ganga Narayan Dutta Vs. Indra Narayan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.49
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case I think, this, appeal must be dismissed, inspite of the interesting argument which has been presented to us by the learned Vakil for the appellant, and the short ground is that there was a decree in the mortgage suit in which the defendants were not only the widow but also the then reversioner. The decree must, therefore, be taken to bind the whole estate. Under that decree a sale was held and a third party purchased the estate, and it seems to me that as long as that decree stands, and until that is set aside for good grounds, the present plaintiff cannot get behind it and maintain the present suit. For this reason I think that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.Asutosh Mookerjee, J.2. I agree that this appeal must be dismissed.3. The property in dispute belonged originally to one Ram Sankar Roy who died in 1887. He left a widow Brahmomoyi and a daughter's son Ram Gopal Sen. On the 13th May 1896, Brahmomoyi and Ram Gopal executed, in favo...
Manmotha Nath Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Ganga Giri GossaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.129
1. We adjourned this matter for settlement between the parties but unfortunately they have been unable to come to terms; and it is incumbent on us, therefore, to decide whether the Rule should be made absolute or discharged. After hearing the parties at length we are of opinion that the Rule should be discharged.2. The important dates have been given to us by the learned Pleader who showed cause; but we do not think it necessary to set them out in full in this judgment. The Rule was granted on four grounds, Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 in the petition mentioned The first ground related to the addition of the 4th party Satkari Das on 7th February 1916. The proceedings had commenced on 8th June 1915, but in consequence of the petition of compromise between the 1st and 2nd parties and the subsequent applications to this Court, matters were delayed and nothing had been done towards holding the enquiry. On 7th February 1916, the 4th party Satkari Das applied to be made a party, alleging that he had a...
Kamal Mandal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.970
1. These are references under Section (sic) (1), Criminal Procedure Code, made by the District Magistrate of Jessore. The facts are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. On the night of 10th October 1915, a burglary with theft was committed in the house of one Bijoy1a1 Ghosh of Raigram. On the 12th December 1915, another burglary with theft was committed in the house of one Bijoygopal Roy of the same village. ]n the course of the investigation in the second case the Police discovered the stolen articles of Bijoylal Ghosh as also those of Bijoygopal Roy from the huts and from underneath a heap of straw in the courtyard of the two accused, Kamal Mandal and his son Purna Mandal. Two separate cases were thereupop instituted against both the accused, one in respect of each incident. The trials were separately held and separate judgments were delivered. The Sub-Deputy Magistrate sentenced each accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in each case and he ordered that the se...
Bhaiganti Bewa Vs. Himmat Bidyakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.7
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the suit was brought for ejectment.2. In the first Court the plaintiff was successful and obtained a decree.3. In the first Appellate Court, however, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed on the ground that the defendant had, succeeded in proving that he was entitled to the land. The learned Subordinate Judge further found; on my reading of his judgment, on the second issue which was whether the land was settled with the defendant by the plaintiff in burga,' that the plaintiff had settled the land with the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff, but that inasmuch as the tenancy had come to an end, Section 116 did not apply and, therefore, the defendant was entitled to set up his own title against that of the plaintiff.4. It appears that the plaintiff alleged that the land was hers and she had obtained it by succession and settled it with defendant on the 14th of January 1910 for a year's tenancy which would, of course, come to an end on the 14th of J...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »