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.
Amjad Ali Hazi and ors. Vs. Ismail and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1916
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.504
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. I do not think we can interfere in this case.2. It appears that the suit was brought for recovery of possession and for declaration that the decree in a certain rent suit was fraudulent.3. The Court of first instance found that this decree was obtained fraudulently.4. The learned District Judge in the first Appellate Court gave judgment in which he impliedly decided that the decree in the rent suit was obtained by fraud.5. On appeal to this Court Mr. Justice Beachcroft acted upon that supposition.6. When the matter came in appeal under the Letters Patent to the Bench consisting of the late Chief Justice and Mr. Justice N.R. Chatterjea, it was decided that the learned Judge of the first Appellate Court ought to have come to a distinct finding on this all-important question whether the decree in the rent suit had been obtained by fraud.7. Therefore, the matter was sent down to the District Judge for a finding upon that point. As has been already pointed out by ...
Nuri Miah Vs. Ambica Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.869
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.Rule No. 326 of 1916.1. In this case the action was for pre-emption. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance on the 16th of January 1914. But on appeal to the District Judge, that decision was reversed, and the District Judge decreed the suit, holding as a matter of fact that the ceremonies had been duly performed, that the defendant-purchaser was not a co-sharer and that the property was joint property at the time of the institution of the suit. From that, the defendant appealed to the High Court, and that appeal was dismissed by the two learned Judges who constituted the Bench on that occasion See 32 Ind. Cas. 893-Ed. Then a Rule was obtained by the defendant calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why that judgment should not be reviewed upon three grounds, the main ground being that the conditions which were necessary to give a right to the plaintiff to preeruption did not exist at the date of the decree and that is the point which has been ma...
Durgapada Panja Vs. Bhusan Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.383
1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of 1 bigha 6 cottahs of land as appertaining to his holding bearing a yearly rent of Rs. 54 8-0.2. It appears that the landlord sued the present plaintiffs and others for arrears of rent in respect of another holding with a rent of Rs. 9 odd. In that suit in the description of the holding the landlord included the plot now in question. In the result the suit was dismissed as against the present plaintiffs and decreed ex parte against other defendants. In execution of the decree the landlord put the holding to sale and the auction-purchaser has taken possession of the holding and of the plot now in suit, which was described in the sale proceedings as part thereof Delivery of possession by the Court was in Chait 1315 and the present suit for recovery of possession was brought by the plaintiff on the 18th of January 1913/1319.3. On these facts the Court of first instance, relying on the case of Aminuddin Munshi v. Ulfutunnissa Bibi ...
Rajendra Kumar Roy and Ors. Vs. the Hon'ble Maharaja Manindra Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.464
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits for rent of two jotes, one comprising 24 bighas and odd and the other 23 bighas and odd.2. The defence was that all the lands of the jotes had diluviated and that the defendants were not, therefore, liable for rent. There was a local investigation by a Commissioner and it was found that the jotes suffered total extinction on account of diluvion.'3. The lands were held under two kabuliyats for a term of five years, and there was a stipulation that on the expiry of the term a fresh settlement would be taken on enhanced rents. No fresh settlement was taken and the defendants paid rent for two years (after the expiry of the lease) during which the lands were partly diluviated. They did not pay rent for the years in suit, as the lands were wholly washed away.4. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, but his decree was reversed, and the suit was decreed, by the Court of Appeal below. The defendants have appealed to this Court.5....
Meajan Matbor Vs. AlimuddIn Mea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.571
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Chapman, by which he set aside the judgment of the Officiating Additional District Judge of Dacca whereby he affirmed the judgment of the learned Munsif.2. The action was brought for rent by the plaintiff, and the defence was that the rent had in fact been paid. The learned Munsif found that it had not been paid. The learned Officiating District Judge investigated the facts and came to the conclusion, as the learned Munsif did, that the rent had not in fact been paid, and he said in his judgment: 'The learned Munsif has disbelieved the witnesses to payment for cogent reasons and they have not been met.' Then after making a few other observations he goes on to say: 'The determining factor in the case is the evidence of the plaintiff's Pleader. He deposes that defendant No. 2 came to him before the suit and asked him to make a settlement,' and on reference to the evidence it appears that the interview to which ...
NabIn Chandra Aich Vs. Noakhali Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.985
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge of Noakhali recommending that the conviction of the accused and the sentence passed on him under Section 218 of the Bengal Municipal Act by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Noakhali may be set aside.2. The accused put up a fence and is alleged to have thereby encroached on a public drain, which lies towards the east of a public road within the Noakhali Municipality. On the 20th December 1915, the Municipality served a notice on him under Section 202 requiring him to remove within eight days the fence, which was described as an obstruction. The accused preferred an objection on the 23rd December, stating that the fence put up by him was not an obstruction as the eastern part of the drain appertained to the land of an ad joining school. On that very day the Chairman passed an order in the following terms: 'I have seen the place. Nabin Chandra Aich (the accused) has encroached on the Municipal dr...
Priyanath Pal Vs. Tarini Charan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.618
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In spite of the argument which has been addressed to us by Mr. Roy, and in which I was personally much interested, I do not think we should interfere with the judgment of the learned Judge; the short ground is that it is common knowledge that the Bengal Tenancy Act was an Act passed in the interests of tenants, and it is also common knowledge that rents are sometimes paid in money, sometimes in kind, and sometimes partly in money and partly in kind; and when I find the words of Section 30 are, The landlord of a holding, held at a money rent,' I think it must he taken that the Statute is referring to a tenancy where the rent is solely payable in money. That is borne out not only by the words of the section itself, but also by the words of the other sections to which Mr. Roy drew Four attention, especially Section 38, as to which I made some remarks during the course of the argument which I need not repeat.2. For these reasons the appeal must be dismissed with ...
Ahmed Ali Vs. Abdul Majid
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.773
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the property described in Schedule II of the plaint is mosque property and is inalienable, that the alienation of the same by the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 in favour of the defendant No. 1 is invalid, and for a decree that possession of the said property be restored to the mosque. The suit was instituted on the 31st May 1912 and, after the written statement had been filed by the defendant No. 1 on the 26th July 1912, the plaintiff made an application for amendment of the plaint on the 19th August 1912. In that application it was stated that the plaintiff was an heir of one of the original sarbarakars and was along with other persons interested in the maintenance of the mosque, and permission of the Court to sue on behalf of all the persons interested was prayed for under Order I, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code. The defendant No. 1 in his additional written statement pleaded that the plaint ought to be rejected as no permissio...
Rajani Nath Das Vs. Ofajudd1 Mullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.817
1. This appeal has been very clearly and ably argued by Babu Atul Chandra Gupta, Vakil for the appellant, and we are quite satisfied that the learned Judge below was wrong in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.2. The defendant No. 1 in this case executed a kabala in favour of the plaintiff., on receipt of consideration. Thereafter he executed a second kabala in respect of the same property in favour of defendant No. 2 and had the latter document registered first and placed the second purchaser in possession. The learned Judge below has held that because the defendant No. 2 acquired the property without any notice of the previous title of the plaintiff., his title ought to prevail against the prior title of the plaintiff., which was registered later. This view is clearly in violation of Section 47 of the Registration Act, which provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or m...
Panchkori Ghosh Vs. Hari Das Jati and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.341
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case there has been an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Coxe by the plaintiff, and the circumstances of this case are to my mind somewhat extraordinary. It appears that on the 4th August 1904, there was alleged to have been made a mortgage by the defendants in this case in favour of the plaintiff of certain property, which need not be more specifically described. After that mortgage the zemindars brought an action against the defendants for rent and obtained a decree, and were proposing to sell the defendants' interest for the purpose of realizing their decree. Subsequently on the 17th of January 1907, the plaintiff made a deposit of Rs. 284 in the Court in which the decree by the zemindars had been obtained, and it is for the recovery of that amount that the present suit was brought. The deposit was made under somewhat peculiar circumstances. As has been pointed out by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Mookerjee, it was made in the first instanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »