Kolkata Court July 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.
Maharajkumar Shoshikanta Acharjya Chowdhury Vs. Raja Sarat Chundra Roy ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.500
1. This appeal is from a determination of the Court below, contained in a judgment, dated the 5th April 1916, upon a question raised under Section 47 of the Code in regard to the construction of a decree.2. The decree (dated the 27th March 1905) was obtained, by the respondent Raja Sarat Chandra Roy against Raja Surja Kanta Acharjya, the predecessor of the appellant, Raja Soshi Kanta Acharjya. There was an appeal to this Court which was dismissed on the 22nd May 1900. A further appeal to the Privy Council was also dismissed on the 20th July 1914 Maharaja Surja Kanta Acharjya Bahadur v. Sarat Chandra Roy Chowdhury 25 Ind. Cas. 309 : 18 C.W.N. 1281 : 27 M.L.J. 365 : 16 M.L.T. 290 : (1914) M.W.N. 757 : 6 Bom.L.R. 925 : 1 L.W. 807 : 20 L.J. 563 (P.C.). The result was that the decree of the first Court stood confirmed without modification.2. The suit related to a considerable area of land in the possession of the appellant, which the respondent claimed as part of an estate which he had purc...
Bagala Sundari Debi Vs. Prosanna Nath Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.797
1. This is a Rule obtained by the petitioner, the plaintiff in a suit pending before the Subordinate Judge of the second Court at Burdwan, calling on the opposite party, the defendant in that suit, to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The order complained of is the order of the learned Subordinate Judge as to the amount of the. Court-fee to be paid on the plaint in the suit instituted. Many cases have been cited on the section of the Court Fees Act dealing with the. point; but they are not uniform. It may be, as the learned Vakil who appears for the defendant says, that it is difficult to reconcile them. But after all, the Court has got to look at and see in each particular case what is the nature of the relief claimed and, for that purpose, it must look at the allegations that are contained in the plaint. Now, what do we find in this case? The plaintiff asks for a declaration that a certain decree is invalid. What is the nature of the decree that she asks...
Asna Bibi and ors. Vs. Jaigunnissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.887
1. In the suit, out of which this appeal arises plaintiff sued as the residuary heir of one Shane Ali to recover his share of certain property left by Shane Ali. He has been found to be the residuary heir of Shane Ali, and this finding has not been challenged on appeal.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed his suit holding that the property claimed is wakf property, and against this decision plaintiff appeals.3. His main ground of appeal is that the question 'of the validity of the wakf is res judicata, the alleged wakf having been decided in a claim case brought in the course of previous execution proceedings not to have been a bona fide docunent, but to have been put forward for the purpose of defeating the claims of creditors. The property which was the subject of the claim case is not the property which is now in suit. It is argued in support of the appeal that, all the parties to the present suit having been made parties to the claim case, and the order in the claim case ...
Arindra Rajbanshi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.326
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case we are of opinion that the Rule should be made absolute and that the appeal should be re-heard; and we think it should be re-heard by the same learned Judge.2. Speaking for myself, I should like to make it clear that I make no suggestion that the learned Judge has not heard this, appeal in a proper manner; on the contrary I am convinced that he gave the hearing of the appeal his full consideration; and I think, as far as I can see from his judgment, that he must have taken very considerable care with regard to the case made against each of the accused. His judgment, however, is one that is subject to review by this Court, and we do not think he has given us sufficient materials to enable us to come to a decision upon the points which arise in the case.3. Therefore, the case must be sent back to him for the purpose of the appeal being re-heard and his giving further judgment on it.4. I do not suggest for a moment that he should repeat the evidence...
Radha Kanta GuIn Vs. Kartic Guin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.1002
1. We accept this reference and we think that the order should be set aside, in so far as it directed that the complainant was to retain possession of the clump until ousted by the Civil Court....
Dyam Khan and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1916
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.421
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Cammilla. The plaintiffs are Dyam and Abdul Hamid Bhunia, who are in the position of champertors, and Romjan Banu, Anarjan and Mahabat Ali, children of One Amanulla. Amanulla died about 1893 leaving by his first wife three children who had then attained their majority, and a widow Ayesha Bibi and four minor children by her. The majors were Syed Ali, Nayan Bibi and Meherjan Bibi, defendants Nos. 7, 8 and 9.2. Ayesha Bibi is defendant No. 6, Romjan Banu. Anarjan and Mohabat Ali are plaintiffs Nos. 3, 4 and 5; Mullickjan, the 4th child of Amanulla by Ayesha Bibi, is defendant No. 10. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 represent the Firm of Khetra Mohan Dey and Co., who are said to have purchased from Ayesha Bibi towards the end of April 1898 the shares of her four minor children in the howla of Amanulla. This suit is brought to recover from defendants Nos. 1 to 5 me seven annas fifteen gandas share of tho...
Afsar Shaik and anr. Vs. Saurava Sundari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.371
1. This is an appeal by two of the defendants in a foreclosure suit. On the 2nd December 1908, the first defend-ant executed in favour of the plaintiff an instrument which was a mortgage by conditional sale within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act. The mortgagor ostensibly sold the mortgaged property on condition that on default of payment of the mortgage-money on the 14th May 1909, the sale would become absolute. The principal amount was Rs. 41 and carried interest at the rate of 37 1/4 per cent, per annum. The document further recited that the mortgagor retained possession of the property. The case for the plaintiff is that the mortgage-money was not re-paid on the due date, with the result that from the 15th May 1909, she entered into possession of the mortgaged property with the consent of the mortgagor. She continued in peaceful occupation till she was dispossessed by force on the 1st April 1912, by the third defendant who had meanwhile succee...
Kumar Prafulla Krishna Deb and ors. Vs. Nosibannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.425
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a matter which has been referred to us by Mr. Justice N. R. Chatterjea and Mr. Justice Richardson before whom the appeal came.2. In our opinion there was no right of appeal to those learned Judges for the reason that the order from which the appeal was filed was an order in a suit instituted by a landlord for the recovery of rent. The order was passed by a District Judge, and the amount claimed in the suit did not exceed Rs. 100 and the order did not decide any question which related to title to land or some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto or to any of the matters specifically referred to in Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Under these circumstances we are of opinion that no appeal lay from the order of the District Judge to the High Court. If this matter had been brought to the notice of the two learned Judges no doubt, they would not have sent this matter by way of reference to us. As a matter of fact only one of t...
Dokarij Oddar and ors. Vs. Nilmani Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1916
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.709
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the first four defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of land upon declaration of title. The Court of First Instance found in favour of the plaintiff upon the questions of title and possession and made a decree accordingly. Upon appeal by the defendants the Subordinate Judge has affirmed the decision of the Trial Court upon the question of title, and that portion of his judgment cannot, in our opinion, He successfully attacked in second appeal. But the appellants argue that his decision upon the question of limitation is erroneous, inasmuch as he has overruled the plea of limitation on the ground that 'there is no satisfactory evidence that the defendants had possession before the alleged date of dispossession and were in possession for upwards of twelve years.' In our opinion, this contention must prevail.2. The plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the disputed land on the strength of title by purchase at a sale in execution of a mortg...
Maharaj Kumar Shoshi Kanta Acharji Chowdhury Bahadur Vs. Raja Sarat Ch ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1916
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.167
1. This appeal is from a determination of the Court below contained in a judgment, dated the 5th April 1916, upon a question raised under Section 47 of the Code in regard to the construction of a decree.2. The decree (dated the 27th March 1905) was obtained by the respondent Raja Sarat Chandra Roy against Raja Surja Kanta Acharjya, the predecessor of the appellant, Raja Sashi Kumar Acharjya. There was an appeal to this Court which was dismissed on the 22nd May 1908. A further appeal to the Privy Council was also dismissed on the 20th July 1914 Surja Kanta Acharjya v. Sarat Chandra Roy Chowdhwy 25 Ind. Cas. 309 : 18 C.W.N. 1281 : 20 C.L.J. 563 : 16 M.L.T. 290 : 27 M.L.J. 365 : 1 L.W. 807 : (1914) M.W.N. 757 : 16 Bom. L.R. 925 (P.C.). The result was that the decree of the first Court stood con firmed without modification.3. The suit related to a considerable area of land in the possession of the appellant which the respondent claimed as part of an estate which he had purchased at a sale ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »