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.
Kasim Ali and ors. Vs. the Chairman of Municipal Commissioners and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.782
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit for an injunction under the following circumstances.2. There is a Municipal ferry, known as the Autimohanied Pathuriaghat ferry, on the Kurufali river in the town of Chittagong. The ferry was let out by the Chittagong Municipality (the defendant No. 1) to certain farmers who are the other defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs, who are boatmen, allege that they and other boatmen and sampanivallas have been from a long time ferrying passengers in their boats between the Autimohanied and Chaklai Ghats on the river Kurufali and the Kalapal and Jimat All's Pole Ghats on the Sikalbaha Canal, which is connected with, and at right angles to, the Kurufali river, and as the said ghats on the Sikalbaha Canal are not within a distance of 2 miles along the banks of the river Kurufali above or below the Municipal ferry, they are entitled to ferry boats. They further allege that after a criminal case in connection with the ferry had been decided ...
Girija Prosunno Roy and ors. Vs. Becharam Patra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.846
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Howrah. The learned Vakil for the appellants in conducting the appeal has taken up a considerable portion of our time and, if I may say so without disrespect, not very usefully. The cases which he has cited before us, with a view to leading us to disagree with the decision of the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, really have nothing to do with the matter. The decisions of this Court are clear that a suit of this nature requires the consent of the Advocate-General. There are good reasons why that should be so. Experience shows in all countries that a very large portion of public trust funds has been wasted in litigation and, therefore, it has been considered that a suit relating to a public trust should not be brought except with the consent of the Advocate General, unless the plaintiffs have a special claim or claim a special interest under and...
BepIn Behari Saha Vs. Abdul Barik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.613
1. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Small Cause Court. The suit was dismissed for the plaintiff's default in the presence of the defendant. The plaintiff then made an application under Order IX, Rules 4 and 9, for restoration and re-hearing of the case. On this occasion also there was a default and then the order dismissing this case was made in the presence of the defendant's Pleader. There was again an application made under Order IX, Rule 9, for the re-hearing of the case. The learned Munsif held that Order IX, Rule 9, did not apply and, therefore, dismissed the application.2. It appears that the plaintiff made an application also for treating it as an application for review. On that application also, the learned Judge said such application does not lie.' We are unable to see the justification of such orders.3. In the first place, we do not think that Order IX, Rule 9, does not apply; and in arriving at this conclusion, we follow the case of Diljan Mihha Bibi v. Hemanta Kumar Roy...
Kalipada Sirkar Vs. Harimohan Dalal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.856
1. This appeal is directed against an order for execution of a decree for costs. The decree was made on the 24th September 1913 and is in these terms: it is ordered and decreed that this suit be dismissed, and the costs of the suit Rs. 400-8-9 be paid by the plaintiff to the above-named defendant with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from this day till the date of realisation.' In the cause title, set out at the commencement of the decree, the plaintiff is described as follows:--'Lunatic Brojogopal Sarkar, represented by certificated guardian under Act XXXV of 1858, Srimati Mohamaya Dasi, wife of the said Brojogopal Sarkar.' The decree consequently entitles the successful defendant to recover the costs allowed in his favour from the lunatic Brojogopal Sarkar. On the 2nd February 1915, the defendant decree-holder applied for execution in accordance with Order XXI, Rule 11(2). Execution was sought against Kalipada Sarkar, the infant son of Brojogopal Sarkar, who had died in the interval...
Srimati Bhubaneswari Debi, Widwo of Bhubaneswar Bhattacharjya and ors. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.669
Fletcher, J 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 30th March 1914. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover certain land on which buildings had been erected by the defendants, the plaintiffs being the reversioners on the death of a Hindu woman whose name was Kumud Kanvini Debi. The plaintiffs are the uncles of the defendants. They now come forward and say that the defendants at the time they acquired the property were of the age of about 18 and 23 years and that they have got no title to the property. The learned Judge of the Court below has found as a fact that there was no legal necessity for the sale It may be that, on a more careful view of the evidence that finding may be challenged. He has also found that the recitals in the kobla were not true. He has further found that the plaintiffs were consenting parties to the sale and that they also by their conduct induced the defend...
In Re: Kissory Mohan Roy Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.990
Greaves, J.1. This is an application made on behalf of one Lachmi Chand Karnowat to set aside an order made on the 26th April 1916 by the Registrar for his examination under Section 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The order was obtained ex parte at the instance of one Balkishen Bagri, a creditor of the Insolvent It was made on the petition of Balkishen Bagri filed on the 15th April 1916, and the petition alleges that Balkishen Bagri filed an affidavit in proof of his claim, and I understand from the petition that the Official Assignee admitted the proof by a letter, dated the 31st July 1915, addressed to Balkishen's attorney. The ground upon which the applicant seeks to set aside the order is, that it was made ex parte.2. Section 36(1) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act provides that the Court may, on the application of the Official Assignee or of any creditor who has proved his debt, at any time after an order of adjudication has been made, summon before it, in such man...
Hem Chandra Biswas Vs. Purna Chandra Mookerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.638
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Bardwan, dated the 30th January 1915. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage security and the only question that has been raised in this appeal is one of limitation. The mortgage was dated the 3rd July 1895 and the present suit was instituted on the 20th June 1913. Both the lower Courts have found that three payments were made, namely, Rs. 10 on the 18th August 1900, Rs. 80 on the 25th October 1900 and Rs. 10 on the 3rd February 1903. It is common ground that the plaintiff must succeed, if at all, on proving the payment of 3rd February 1903, which would save the suit from being barred by limitation. The view that has been taken by the learned District Judge is this: First of all, lie says: Was this payment of the 3rd February 1903 a payment on account of interest as such within the meaning of Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act?' The learned Judge apparently came to the co...
Kangali Dhubi Vs. Ichhamoyi Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.840
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly these.2. The plaintiffs are rich men. The defendant has his residence on a small piece of. land near their residence. The plaintiffs coveted this land, bat they could not induce the defendant to give up the land in his possession. They at last entered into an agreement with the defendant and his landlords that they would give to the landlords another piece of land in similar right and take this land in taluki right, and that the defendant-appellant was to vacate the land on receipt of Rs. 60 as compensation for removing his huts and receive out of the land so given in exchange an equal piece of land with rights similar to those he previously had for the purpose of his residence. The landlords of the defendant, namely, Sarat and his brother were not originally made parties but subsequently, on the objection of the defendant, were added as parties.3. The learned Muusif found that there was a tripartite agreement by which there was ...
Shaik Sahed Vs. Krishna Mohan Basak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.563
1. The plaintiff, a co-sharer landlord, brought a suit for arrears of rent against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the heirs of his original tenant. Defendant No. 1 did not appear, but defendants Nos. 2 and 3 appeared and filed a written statement denying the rate of rent alleged by the plaintiff and pleading want of parties and dispossession of a part of the holding. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit for want of parties and dispossession of a part of the holding and expressed an opinion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the rate alleged by him. On appeal by the plaintiff the learned Subordinate Judge has given a money-decree against defendant No. 1 only for the entire claim. The defendent No. 1. appeals and it is contended on his behalf that the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that defendant No. 1 used to pay the rent as the representative of the old tenant and is, therefore, liable to pay the whole rent, although there is no ev...
Ganga Charan Das and anr. Vs. Akhil Chandra Saha on the Death of Radha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.595
1. The plaintiffs attached certain properties in execution of a decree against defendant No. 9. Some of the other defendants claimed the same and were successful. The claims were allowed on the 3rd of September 1908 and the plaintiffs brought this suit on the 2nd of September 1909 in the Court of the Munsif of Dacca. The defendants objected to the valuation of the suit and on the 23rd of June 1910, the learned Munsif held that the suit was undervalued and ordered the plaint to be returned and directed the plaintiffs to pay costs to the contending defendants. The plaint was accordingly returned on the 27th of June. The costs payable by the plaintiffs to the contending defendants were subsequently calculated in the office and on the 30th June an order fixing the amount at Rs. 25 was recorded in the order-sheet. When returning the plaint on the 27th of June the learned Munsif directed that the plaint might be re filed in the proper Court within 5 days. The plaint was actually re-filed on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »