Kolkata Court June 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.
Madhu Sudan Pal Vs. Parbati Sundari Dasya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.643
1. This appeal arises out of orders in an insolvency proceeding, the name of the insolvent being Sanatan Pal. The permission of this Court has been obtained under Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to prefer this appeal after permission had been refused by the District Judge.2. One Nanda Kumar Saha obtained a decree against the insolvent on the 24th May 1911.3. He took out execution proceedings and some property of the insolvent was sold on the 17th February 1913 to the purchasers Kali Krishna Pal and Amar Chand Pal. Kali Krishna sold the property which he had purchased to the appellant Madhu Sudan, who must not be confused with another Madhu Sudan Pal who is one of the respondents in this appeal. The date of the conveyance to the appellant was 28th February 1913. In the meantime, Sanatan Pal on the 7th October 1912 applied to be declared an insolvent and the order of adjudication was passed on the 7th February 1913. The proceeds of the execution sale were rateably distributed...
Mohammad Kazi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.972
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. We think in this case that the conviction ought not to stand by-reason of the first ground which was raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The charge against the three accused was that they illegally possessed and sold opium, contrary to the provisions of the Opium Act of 1878. It appears that there were three pieces of black substance which weighed something like 2 1/2 seers, it and the prosecution was lodged upon the assumption that the whole of this substance was opium. The case apparently proceeded upon that assumption, and the taking of the evidence was concluded; and my learned brother has drawn my attention to the fact that it was at the end of the case that the accused persons asked that this black substance should be analysed; and, upon analysis being made, the analyst reported that in the lumps, traces of opium were detected but the substance was unfit for use as opium. Then a telegram was received on the following day about which the l...
Ram Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Hachunia Fakir Alias Sachunia Fakir and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.843
1. The order made in this case does not seem to be one which is authorised by the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1. There was no formal defect in the case and the learned Munsif ought to have respected the rule of this Court quoted by the petitioners in Hira Lal Mitra v. Uday Chandra Dey 14 Ind. Cas. 33 : 16 C.W.N. 1027 : 16 C.L.J. 103. There is no general jurisdiction given by the Civil Procedure Code for allowing a party to withdraw except under the provisions of the said Rule; nor do we find any reason why the learned Munsif did not grant any costs to the defendants.2. The order of the learned Munsif, therefore, allowing the plaintiff to withdraw is wrong. We set it aside and direct that the case, as against defendants Nos. 4 to 6, be tried in accordance with law.3. The Rule is made absolute with costs, one gold mohur....
Todan Mir Alias Abdul Kadir Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.981
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case we think that this appeal should be allowed. This is a case which has given us much cause for consideration. It is a serious case, one in which the accused was charged with the offence of arson, for which he has received a very considerable sentence, one which, in my opinion, is not too severe for an offence of this kind, if it were clearly proved that he was guilty of it.2. Now, the learned Judge has given a very careful and elaborate judgment in this case: and unwilling as I am ever to interfere with the decision of a learned Judge who has had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the Trial Court, in this ease I think there are certain matters which lead us to think that it would not be safe to allow that judgment to stand. First of all, the learned Judge in summing up his conclusion says: 'On these facts I believe the evidence of the Sub-Registrar' (that is the complainant) 'and his servant Asdu, supported as it is by the prev...
Ram Chandra Misra and ors. Vs. Ganesh Chandra Gangopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.78
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was a suit for the refund of money paid as an advance on a lease there after to be executed which, in fact, was not executed. The circumstances, stated briefly, are as follows. The plaintiffs were desirous to enter into coal mining operations and for that purpose to obtain the underground rights in 601 bighas of land in village Kaniapur. In this village defendants owned a three annas share. The plaintiffs had separately negotiated but without success with the co-sharers of the defendants for a transfer of their interest in this property. Upon the failure of this negotiation, the plaintiffs entered into an arrangement with the defendants that the latter should lease to them their own share and twelve and a half annas more belonging to their co- sharers and also should guarantee them for coal mining purposes the peaceful possession of the remaining half anna share.2. A draft lease, dated the 30th October 1908, was drawn up embodying the terms, ...
Gopal Chandra Banerjee and ors. Vs. Mohammad Soleman Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.856
1. This is an appeal by the defendants, the tenants, from the decision of the learned Special Judge of Hooghly affirming the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for enhancement of rent. The tenants gave in evidence rent receipts which have been accepted by the Judge, proving that rent had been paid at a uniform rate for a period exceeding twenty years. So that the presumption was that the tenants held the land without being liable to have their rent increased, unless and until the landlord showed something to the contrary. The question is: 'Has the landlord shown something to the contrary?' The learned Judge has not approached the case from that view. He says that the tenants do not show that they represent the persons who were formerly in possession of the land. The tenants' case was that the persons who were formerly in possession were their benamdars. The learned Judge says' that be cannot accept that case. But the learned Judge had go...
Madhu Sudan Sinha and ors. Vs. Kali Charan Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.246
1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the great-grandsons of one Tularam Sinha who, as they allege, was the brother of Khosal Sinha. Khosal died many years ago leaving a widow named Bhagabati and a son named Shibram. Shibram himself died in 1836 leaving a widow, Chhaya Kumari, a mere child, whom he had married as his second wife. There also survived him Fudan Kumari, his daughter by his first wife, and her husband Chet Lall. They had issue, two sons then alive, Ram Lal and Behary Lal, and several daughters born subsequently. Behary Lal died in 1837 and Ram Lal in 1868. Of the daughters Golap Sundari became the mother of a son named Nilkantha, the father of the defendant No. 1, Kali Charan Sinha. Annapurna also had a son whose widow is the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 3 is in possession of a property, Taraf Raghab Bati (No. 13 in the schedule of the plaint), under colour of a conveyance executed by Chhaya Kumari and Nilkantha Singh in 1887.2. A genealogical table prepared by the plai...
Hriday Nath Parai and anr. Vs. Akshay Lal Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.963
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of a peculiar character, made ostensibly under Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery Of possession of land on establishment of title. The Court of First Instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the evidence adduced by them was not sufficient to prove their claim. Upon appeal, the plaintiffs made an application for leave to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action; this was taken up for consideration at the time of the hearing of the appeal. The Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not produced important items of evidence and that, in the absence of such evidence (which was admittedly with the plaintiffs), it would be difficult to come to any satisfactory finding on the question of title, although the documents already proved on their behalf raised a presumption in their favour. The Subordinate J...
In Re: Sarajbashini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.125
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule calling on the Collector of Alipore and the Government Pleader to show cause why in the circumstances set out in the petition, the order of the District Judge of the 24-Parganas demanding stamp duty on the certificate ordered to be granted to the petitioner should not be set aside. The applicant applied to the learned District Judge for a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act in succession to her mother with respect to some Government promissory notes. The mother acquired those promissory notes from the father of the applicant and had taken out a certificate and paid the stamp duty under the terms of the Succession Certificate Act. The argument that has been addressed to us in this case does not turn upon the wording of the Statute imposing a duty in favour of the Crown, but on a comparison of the duties payable under the Succession Certificate Act and the duties payable on grants of Probate or Letters of Administration under the Court Fees Act....
Tarak Nath Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Syama Charan Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.292
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of possession of the property in dispute on a declaration that the defendant No. 1 has not acquired any title to it by purchase at a sale held in execution of a decree against the defendant No. 2, and in the alternative for a decree declaring that the plaintiffs would be entitled to possession of the property on the death of the defendant No. 2. There was also a claim for contribution on account of certain payments made by the plaintiff to save the property from being sold in execution of a mortgage decree, and for satisfaction of other debts.2. The property in dispute, Lot Chauratta, along with other properties belonged to one Gobind Nath Ray Chowdhury who died in 1873, leaving his widow Drobamoyi (the defendant No. 2) and a son Gropendra Nath. The son died in 1882, and the defendant No. 2 adopted a son Sree Nath who died in 1884. Thereupon Drobamoyi adopted the plaintiff No. 1 Tarak Nath in 1884, but subsequently ignoring his adopt...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »