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.
Khetra Mohan Giri and ors. Vs. Darpa NaraIn Giri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.979
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. Since yesterday I have caused enquiries to be made with regard to the practice affecting this matter, and I find that the well-known practice is that an application for revision must be made within sixty days from the date of the order complained of. The Court has allowed an addition, to the sixty days, of the time which is necessary for obtaining copies. This is not a question of limitation, but a of the practice of the Court to the effect that an application for revision must be made within a reasonable time. It is not an inflexible rule, and in exceptional circumstances the rule might be departed from. In this case the date of making over the copy to the applicant was the 1st day of June, so that there was ample time to make this motion on one of the usual motion days, namely, Monday the 5th of June, or Monday the 12th of June; yet this motion was not made until the 19th of June when it was out of time. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that this a...
Sheikh Uzir Vs. Hari Charan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.671
1. In this Rule the question for consideration is, whether the Small Cause, Court Judge properly made a decree against the petitioner. The plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of arrears of rent from the 1st defendant, who was described in the plaint as the principal defendant. Three other persons were joined as pro forma defendants. The allegations in the plaint do not establish any cause of action against these persons, indeed, the only prayer was that a decree for Rs. 12 might be made in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, that is, the principal defendant. At the trial, it transpired that the 2nd defendant (who was alleged by the plaintiff to be his co-sharer) had realised from the tenant defendant the amount claimed. The Court thereupon proceeded to dismiss the suit as against the tenant and make a decree against the 2nd defendant. The second defendant, who is the petitioner in this Court, contends that the decree should be set aside on two grounds; first, that as...
Tomejuddi Vs. Mulai Chowkidar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.72
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession on the allegation of dispossession within 12 years. The plaintiffs said that they were 6-annas owners of a kursa holding of which the defendants were the 10-annas owners, and that the defendants having gradually encroached on their share of land, ultimately dispossessed them of this land entirely in 1313.2. The first Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for joint possession. The Court of Appeal has dismissed it. In so dismissing it the learned Judge says that the plaintiff has failed to prove possession and dispossession as alleged by him. The dispossession as alleged, was within 12 years. In dealing with this matter, the learned Judge says that they (the plaintiffs) either abandoned the land or were forcibly dispossessed of it, as stated by the plaintiffs' side, at some period of time within twelve years from the date of the institution of the suit' and then further on, he finds: 'the plaintiffs' story of their disposse...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Jadav Chandra Misra,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.409
1. These eight appeals arise out of as many suits which were tried togather and determined by one judgment in the Court of first instance. The appeals have similarly been heard together in this Court.2. The lands in question are situated within an estate known as the Jalpai Mahal of Perganna Jalamutha bearing No. 2715, formerly No. 130, on the revenue roll of the District of Midnapur. From Exhibit H 8 and Exhibit S we learn that these Jalpai lands were at one time part of the temporarily settled estate Jalamutha, the property of the zemindars of Garh Basudebpur, but being an area bordering on the sea, were taken possession of by Government for the purposes of its manufacture of salt.3. In 1864 the manufacture of salt was abandoned and the Jalpai Mahal, therefore, passed from the hands of the salt agency on to the hands of the Land Revenue Authorities. For the first year 1271 the Collector, apparently as a temporary measure, leased the mahal to one Narayan Prosad Maiti at a rent of Rs. ...
Aut Behary Gui and ors. Vs. Rameswar Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.40
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 21st April 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Katwa. The suit was brought, by the plaintiffs to obtain a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from filling up a certain tank in which the plaintiffs, had an easement by virtue of a declaratory decree that was made in a former suit in their favour. The case apparently, therefore, was a very simple one because the evidence established without doubt that the defendants were doing and about to do acts which must necessarily interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs that were declared in their favour in the former suit. The case, however, which was made and commended itself to the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was that the tank had become a nuisance to the defendants and that, therefore, the defendants were entitled to fill it up. The method in which the tank, according to the judgment, of the learned Judge, became...
Dharanidhar Mukherji Vs. Rakhal Das Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.631
1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum, dated the 2nd March 1914, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Bolpur. The suit was brought for specific performance of an option to re-sell certain property, which had been sold to the father of the defendant No. 1. The option, apparently, so far as one can gather, was unlimited as to time and no question has been raised in either of the Courts below nor in the grounds of appeal to this Court as to the option being a perpetuity. We must take the case as presented in the Courts below and in the grounds of appeal to this Court. An option by a purchaser to re-sell the land to the vendor on certain terms and conditions is a perfectly valid contract and there can be specific performance of such contract, as has been directed in many actions brought to enforce such options. Nobody has ever doubted that an option to re-sell the land to the vendor is a perfectly good contract which, if the...
Subhadra Sundari Choudhurani Executrix to the Estate of Ananda Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.196
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the lower Appellate Court, It appears that there was a local investigation in the suit and the Court of first instance held that the investigation was unsatisfactory, but, upon other evidence that Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. Upon appeal by the defendant, the District Judge was of opinion that a fresh local investigation was necessary to be made in the case, but instead of directing such investigation himself, he remanded the case to the first Court for fresh decision after a fresh investigation. As the case was not disposed of upon a priliminary point by the Court of first instance, the learned Judge had no power to remand the case to that Court. The order of the District Judge is, therefore, set aside and the case is sent back to the lower Appellate Court, in order that it may be restored to its file and that the appeal may be re-heard after a fresh local investigation is made.2. The costs of this appeal will abide the ...
Sashishi Mohan Shaha and anr. Vs. Kumud Kumar Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.415
1. This Rule calls upon the Secretary of State for India in Council to show cause why an order made under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, in circumstances to be presently stated, should not be set aside or modified.2. On the 27th March 1916 the petitioners instituted a suit in the Court of the second Munsif at Alipore for recovery of money due on a hat-chita. Under Rule 14 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs were bound to produce the hat-chita in Court when the plaint was presented. The hatchita was in a bound volume which contained a large number of hat-chitas executed by other persons in favour of the plaintiffs. The entire volume was brought into Court when the plaint was filed. The plaintiffs prayed that the particular hat-chita, whereon their claim was founded, should be detached and placed on the record, and the remainder of the volume should be returned to them. An examination of the hat-chita, which was the foundation of the suit, disclosed that it was not ...
Danpati Mahto and ors. Vs. the Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.582
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 26th December, 1914, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of that place, dated the 9th July, 1918. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, the Midnapur Zamindary Company, Limited, to recover the arrears of rent due under a habuliyat. There are two classes of defendants in this case, the adult defendants and the infant defendants. The appeal in so far as the adult defendants are concerned is, it is conceded, barred by limitation and is accordingly dismissed. We shall now deal with the appeal of the infant defendants, namely, the defendants Nos. 4 to 8.2. Two questions are raised in this appeal with reference to the infant defendants. First of all, it is urged that the defendant No. 3, who entered into this habuliyat on the 14th March, 1909, on behalf of himself and as guardian of the infant defendants, was himself a minor at that time. The learned Judge has found that he was of full age...
In Re: Sital Prasad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.663
Greaves, J.1. This is an application on behalf of Gouri Sunker and the other partners in the firm of Kedarnath and Juggernath, who were adjudicated insolvents on the 29th January 1912, Gouri Sunker having been adjudicated on the 22nd November 1911. These two insolvency proceedings have been consolidated. The application now before me is to set aside the order of adjudication so far as these three persons are concerned, on the ground that they were infants at the, date when the orders of adjudication made, against them respectively were passed. It appears that an order was passed in the Court of the District Judge of Ghazipore under Section 7 of Act VIII of 1890 (The Guardians and Wards Act) on the 11th December 1909. These three persons were minors on that date and Gouri Sunker attained his, majority in the year 1916 and the other two infants will attain their majority in the years 1925 and 1928 respectively, and by virtue of the order of the District Judge of Ghazipore the age of majo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »