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.
The Allahabad Bank Limited Vs. Moti Lal Barman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.95
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Howrah, dated the 10th August 1915. The appeal is preferred nominally against a decree absolute in a suit for sale brought to enforce a mortgage security. On the 25th February 1913, the first defendant along with the second defendant who is a surety for him executed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, The Allahabad Bank Limited, a mortgage for Rs. 55,918-15-9. A suit was subsequently instituted by the Allahabad Bank and a preliminary decree was passed on the 10th September 1914. That preliminary decree found the sum of Rs. 67,990-0-9 as due to the plaintiff Bank and fixed a period of two months for redemption. The decree being made ex parte the defendant No. 1 applied to set it aside. That application was unsuccessful and the order was upheld by the High Court. Then on the 6th January 1915, there was an order relating to the payment by the plaintiff Bank of rents in arrears which the mortgagor did ...
Gadadhar Bhatta Vs. Sarat Chandra Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.634
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the second Court of Chinsura, dated the 22nd November 1913. The suit was one for the recovery of certain rent due under a durpatni. The original plaintiffs were two Hindu ladies named Srimati Dulari Debi and Srimati Peari Debi, widows and heiresses of one Beni Madhab Das, who was a disqualified proprietor and whose estate had been taken charge of by the Court of Wards of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh and represented by the Collector of Mirzapur.2. During the pendency of the suit, the Collector acting under the Court of Wards sold the property, of which rent is claimed, to the present plaintiffs and the present plaintiffs were substituted in place of the two widows. The case as opened by the learned Vakil for the appellant showed a long and complicated title; but it is not necessary to go through all or the whole chain of title that was set out in the opening. It is suffici...
Akshoy Chandra Majhi and ors. Vs. Manmatha Nath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.362
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from, the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the second Court of Burdwan, dated the 13th November 1914, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the second Court at Katwa. The suit brought before the learned Munsif was one for recovery of possession of certain lands, to which the plaintiff founded his title on a deed of gift executed by a lady. The lower Appellate Court has found that the deed of gift was executed. The only question that was raised before that Court and which has also been pressed before us in this appeal is as to the registration of that deed. Under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift of an immoveable property can only be made by a deed of transfer duly registered. The lady died a few hours after executing the deed of gift. The document was, however, registered within the four months required by the Indian Registration Act and the only question is, was the plaintiff an assign of the deceased lady within the ...
Mariam Bibee Vs. Shaikh Muhammad Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1916
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.561
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of Greaves, J., dismissing her suit. The nature of the claim and the defence are fully set out at the beginning of the learned Judge's judgment as follows : 'The plaintiff in this case is the daughter of one Haji Kader Bux, deceased, a Muhammadan of the Eraki sect or community who died on the 28th August 1907, leaving him surviving three sons, the defendants Shaik Mahomed Ibrahim, Shaik Mahomed Solaiman and Abdus Samad, five daughters, namely, the plaintiff and the defendants Hakima Bibi, Khadija Bibi, Ayesha Bibi and Khairunnessa Bibi, and two widows, Waziran Bibi and Mohatabo Bibi, the last named being the mother of the three sons and five daughters. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to 7/88 of her father's estate and amongst other reliefs asks for an enquiry of what the estate consists, and for partition thereof. The defendants other than those above mentioned are two sons of a brother of Haji Kader Bu...
Linotype and Machinery Co. and Windsor Press
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.175
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case, I am of opinion that the document in question is an agreement and not a conveyance.2. The document in question has been somewhat loosely described in the reference to us as a hire-purchase agreement. In order to ascertain what the real effect of the document is, we must, of course, look at the terms of the document; and, I am bound to say that when I heard the document read by the learned Advocate-General the thought that came to my mind was that the point was not arguable. Therefore, I was not at all surprised to hear the learned Advocate-General say, as one would expect him to say under such circumstances, that in his opinion the point was not arguable. Even apart from the decisions in Helby v. Mathews (1895) App. Cas. 471 : 61 L.J. Q.B. 465 : 11 R. 232 : 72 L.T. 841 : 43 W. R. 561 : 60 J. P. 20, which has been cited to us, it is obvious upon the face of the document in question that it is an agreement and nothing more than an agreement. Further than t...
Karali Prasad Guru Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.984
1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge of Bankura.2. The facts material for the determination of the questions raised on this reference may be briefly stated. On the morning of the 29th April 1916, one Golap Goalini lodged an information in the Police Station at Nejhia that, at midnight, Karali Prasad Guru had entered into her house while she and her mother were asleep on the same bed and that the entry was made with intent to commit a theft of her ornaments. She woke up as soon as her body was touched, and noticed the accused, who took away her ear-ring from her right ear. She caught his clothes and raised a cry. Her mother awoke, lighted a match and caught the man. He pushed her down, tried to free himself from the hold of the complainant but failed and ran away naked, leaving his wearing cloth behind. On this information, the Police took action, arrested the accused and sent him up for trial. He was then summarily tried of offences u...
Narasingha Bana Goswami Vs. Prolhodman Tevari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1916
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.25
1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce a mortgage of a pala or turn of worship owned and held by the defendant at the temple of the deity Dhaneswari in a 2 anna share. The mortgage was dated 29th October 1902, the due date for payment being 30th April 1903. The plaintiff in his plaint alleged that Rs. 25 had been paid as interest on 12th October 1905. The suit was filed on 15th April 1915. The question of payment of interest was not gone into by the first Court inasmuch as 13th and 14th April 1915 were holidays. The suit was, therefore within time if the period of limitation be taken as 12 years. It seems to have been assumed in both the Courts below that the period of limitation would be 12 years, so that in the District Judge's Court the question of limitation was not touched upon. In the grounds of appeal, however, to this Court which have been filed by the defendant this question was distinctly raised. The seventh ground is that the suit is barred by limitation upon...
Suraj Ali Vs. Arfan Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.136
1. The complainant Suraj Ali and the accused Arphan Ali are cousins. On the 17th March 1916, Suraj Ali lodged a complaint against Arphan Ali that the latter, along with two others, had, on the 14th March, cut away eight bamboos from is Ham land and had also filled in a pit lade by his sons on another plot of land nth a view to catch fish. Arphan Ali was placed on his trial before an Honorary Magistrate and was charged with offences under Sections 379 and 447, Indian Penal code, namely, first, that he had dishonestly cut and removed eight bamboos from land in patta No. 12 in the possession of Suraj Ali, and secondly, that he had committed criminal trespass on complainant's land in patta No. 15 with intent to fill in a pit made by his sons. The defence in substance was that the land of patta No 12 belonged to the accused and was in his possession and that he had lawfully taken his own bamboos. He further denied that he had filled in any pit and stated that the land in patta No. 15 was th...
Kali Charan Sinha Vs. Ashutosh Sinha and on His Death His Legal Repres ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.660
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore, arising out of a reference with regard to mesne profits.2. The facts may be shortly stated as follows:--The plaintiff claimed a third share of an estate which was left by a man called Bam Lal Singha, and he brought a suit against a relation, who was called Shyama Charan Singha, to have it declared that after the death of a female relation called Bhagabati Barmania he would be entitled to a third share. It appears that Shyama Charan Singha had gone into possession of the whole of the estate about the year 1901. The plaintiff in that suit got a decree in the Court of first instance. There was an appeal to the High Court, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was upheld by the High Court in June 1905. Then there was an appeal by Shyama Charan to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and that appeal was not heard and decided until the year 1911, when the Judicial Committee of th...
Midnapur Zemindary Company Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.96
Sanderson, C.J.1. I think this appeal must be dismissed.2. The point arises upon the plaint which was filed in this case. The learned Judge has held that the plaint was not one that merely asked for a declaratory decree, but was one in which a consequential relief was claimed. The stamp which was upon the plaint was one of Rs. 10, the stamp which is applicable to a plaint in a suit to obtain a declaratory decree, under Article 17, Clause (iii), of the Second Schedule to the Court Pees Act of 1870. The learned Judge held that it was a plaint in which a consequential relief was asked, and consequently it came within Section 7, Sub-section 4, Clause (c) of that Act.3. In my judgment there is no doubt that the learned Judge was right. The suit was instituted under Section 111A of the Bengal Tenancy Act; and in considering the nature of the suit regard must be had to the actual words of the section. It provides that 'No suit shall be brought in any Civil Court in respect of any order direct...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »