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.
Atarmoni Dasi Vs. BepIn Behari Dhur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1916
Reported in: AIR1929Cal193
Costello, J.1. This is an application made by Kali Charan Dhur, one of the defendants in this administration suit. The decree directed the plaintiffs and the defendants Nobin Chandra Dhur and Susila Sundari Dasi to pay to the applicant Rs. 2,590-5-3 with interest thereon from the date of the decree until realization. The application is for the execution of that decree under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 11, Civil P.C. and is in the tabular form required by that rule. In Col. 10 the applicant states:I, the applicant pray that the said sum of Rs. 2,590-5-3 with interest thereon at 6 percent, per annum from the date of the decree till realization and the costs of taking out this execution be realized by attachment and sale of the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtors to and in the immovable properties specified at the date of the application and paid to him.2. The tabular statement was duly filed before the Master under Ch. 6, Rule 12, of the Rules of the Court and as the d...
Asita Mohan Ghose Moulik Vs. Nerode Mohan Ghose Moulik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.127
1. One Radha Mohan Ghose Moulik, a Bengali Kayastha zemindar of the District of Murshidabad governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, died intestate on the 16th Vadro 1300 = 2nd September 1903. In the Collectorate Register he was recorded as the proprietor of certain zemindari properties and as shebait of certain debutter properties. Shortly after his death Sailendra Mohan Ghose Moulik applied for registration of his name under the Land Registration Act in respect of 8 annas of both the zeminlari and debutter properties, alleging that he had been adopted by Radha Mohan as his son on the 26th Joistha 1283--7th June 1876 and that Asita Mohan Ghose Moulik, who was born on the 29th May 1289 as the afterborn natural son of Radha Mohan Ghose Moulik, was entitled to the other 8 annas. Asita Mohan objected to Sailendra's application denying his adoption and applied for registration of his name in respect of the entire 16 annas as the only son and heir of Radha Mohan. The Land Registration...
Beatrice Alice De Ste Croix Vs. Phillip De Ste Croix
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.216
Sanderson, C.J.1. (April 17, 1916).---This is an application by Beatrice Alice De Ste Croix, asking that this Court should make an order that the children of the marriage between herself and her husband should remain within the jurisdiction of this Court until her appeal is disposed of. It is a matter of painful nature, as so many applications in divorce cases are, and this case is peculiarly painful, because it is that of a woman who had been married for a number of years and who has been a mother for a considerable time and who is struggling for the right of her continued access to her two daughters.2. The principle upon which an application such as this ought to be considered was laid down in the case of Symington v. Symington (1875) L.R. 2 H. L. Sc. & D. 415 at p. 420 which was cited to us, the passage to which I desire to refer being at page 420: 'it should be the duty of the Court to look to the interest of the children and carefully to weigh the comparative advantages and disadv...
Sheikh Ratan Bipari Vs. Hira Lal Sarakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.527
1. This is a reference from the District Judge of Dacca under Order XLVI, Rule 7.2. A suit was brought in the Small Cause Court for recovery of damages against the defendant, who is said to have held some land under a contract to take half the proceeds as remuneration for his labour and expense. That was the case of the plaintiff. The defendant said that the case could not be tried by the Small Cause Court but he did not set up any special plea as to his being a tenant and, therefore, not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. Upon the evidence, the learned Small Cause Court Judge found that the defendant was a servant who was remunerated by the receipt of half the produce. Upon that finding he gave a decree to the plaintiff.3. There was an application to the District Judge for making a reference and he has made this reference. According to the learned Judge, the finding of the Trial Court as regards the nature of the suit is erroneous and the defendant ought to have be...
Khohua Moran Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.654
ORDER1. In this case the appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, upon an unanimous verdict of the Jury, upon three charges, namely, first, a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for murdering Pamboo Bura, secondly, a charge under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to Rengai Graondura, and, thirdly, a charge under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to Mosai. The sentence passed upon the accused is in these terms: the 'Court accepting the unanimous verdict of the Jury convicts the accused Khohua Moran under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentences him to transportation for life. The Court also accepting the unanimous verdict of the Jury convicts the accused under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentences him upon each of these counts, to one year's rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run consecutively.' The sentence is defective in form, as the Judge has omitted to determine, whether the sentences of imprisonment and transporta...
Chutterput Singh Vs. Sait Sumari Mal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.602
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the learned Judge by which he refused to set aside an attachment effected at the instance of 2. The material facts and dates were as follows On the 21st May 1896--The plaintiffs obtained a decree in the High Court for the payment of money against the defendant.3. 2nd September 1896--An application was made for the transmission of a certified copy of the decree to the Purnea Court.4. 15th May 1899--Application for execution by arrest and imprisonment of the defendant was made the former application having been returned unexecuted.5. 12th February 1900--An order on the last-mentioned application was made--returnable on the 12th March 1900.6. 12th March 1900--The time was extended for three months.7. 1st June 1908--An application was made in the High Court for the transmission of a copy of the decree to Murshidabad for the attachment of property.8. 30th June 1905--Order for transmission was made.9. 17th ...
Nilmadhab Mahapatra Vs. Keshab Lal Mahapatra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.819
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this ease the appeal is by one of the defendants, defendant No. 2, and the action was brought for rent; and the sole matter in dispute is whether the rent in respect of the paddy is payable at the price which is mentioned in the contract or whether the plaintiff is entitled to get that rent at the market rate at the time the suit was instituted.2. Now, but for the fact that three learned Judges have decided this matter in a way contrary to the one in which I am going to decide it, I really should not have wished to say anything except that this appeal ought to be allowed. But out of deference to the learned Judges, I think it is necessary for me to say one or two words.3. In my opinion this matter must depend upon the construction of the contract, and the construction of the contract only; we have no right to make any speculation as to whether certain passages were entered in the contract for some motive which is not apparent on the contract itself; for instance, i...
Kshum Chand Bhuturia and anr. Vs. Ghane Muhammad Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.361
1. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs, sued the respondents as defendants for rant and obtained a decree for a portion of the claim. The plaintiffs then appealed against the disallowance of the balance of the amount claimed and the defendants did not prefer any cross-appeal nor took objections under Order XLI, Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure. The learned District Judge, however, on the appeal of the plaintiffs dismissed the suit entirely. We think the learned Judge was wrong in doing so. As pointed out in the case of Ganga Dhar Muradi v. Banabashi Padhari 24 In. Cas. 208 : 22 C.L.J. 390, ordinarily Rule 33 should be limited to those cases where as a result of the Appellate Courts interference with the decree in favour of the appellant, further interference is required in order to adjust the rights of the parties in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience. Further, as pointed out in the case of Abial Majhi v. Inta Bepari 32 Ind. Cas. 494 : 20 C.W.N. 542 : 22 C.L.J. 394...
Gour Sundar Bhoumik and ors. Vs. Rakhal Raj Bhoumik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.592
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. The learned Vakil at the opening of his remarks for the purpose of showing cause stated that this was rather a peculiar matter. I entirely agree with him and I most sincerely hope that it is not only a peculiar matter, but also an exceptional matter, because the facts relating to the proceeding in this case are truly amazing-there is no other word for them. The action was brought in November 1906, very nearly ten years ago by the plaintiff for the recovery of certain land. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a judgment. Then there was an appeal to the first Appellate Court. That Court varied the judgment of the first Court by declaring that the plaintiff and the defendants were joint owners of the land. Then there was an appeal to the High Courts and the High Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Brett and Mr. Justice Richardson allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the Court of first instance, and thereby declared that the plaintiff was-entit...
Surendra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Dwarka Nath Chakrabutty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.605
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. An action was brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants claiming ejectment from certain property. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are tenants-at-will only, while the defendants allege that they had a permanent tenancy which had been granted by the plaintiffs' predecessor to the defendants' predecessor, and the Munsif before whom the action was brought gave judgment for the plaintiffs and came to the conclusion that the tenancy was a terminable one on notice. Then there was an appeal to the District Judge, who accepted the findings of fact arrived at by the Munsif but came to the conclusion that the tenancy was a permanent one and gave judgment for the defendants. Thereupon the plaintiffs applied to a Division Bench of this Court for permission that the appeal should be admitted under Order XLI, Rule 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »