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.
NabIn Chandra Nath and ors. Vs. Debendra Mohun Mukhopadya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.612
1. The hatchita in dispute in this case is an extremely informal document. It is virtually a mere memorandum of the loan. Evidence was therefore rightly admitted to show-the rate of interest under Section 92 Sub-section (2) of the Evidence Act.2.This appeal is dismissed with costs....
Bandhu Lall Munshi Vs. Sreemutty LagIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.1006
1. Upon the findings the father of the plaintiff had a lease from year to year in respect of a certain piece of land in the town of Dacca. He was dispossessed brought a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and obtained a decree. That decree was executed by the plaintiff his son after his death, and he obtained what is usually called symbolical possession. He how ever did not obtain actual possession and the present suit is for recovery of the same.2. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that nothing remained after the death of the father for him to inherit. The finding however is that it was a lease from year to year. It was therefore property which was transferable under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act and on general principles heritable unless there was anything to the contrary in the contract. That there was anything in the contract there is nothing to show. On the other hand it was stipulated as stated in the judgment of the lower Court that b...
Kshetra Mohan Ghosh and ors. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.96
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title to land and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant Corporation from interference with them in the exercise of their rights as proprietors. The case for the plaintiffs is that the disputed land appertains to their premises 13/3, Circular Garden Reach Road, that their predecessor constructed a drain thereon for the outlet of water from the premises, and that on the 29th May 1903 two of the officers of the Corporation had caused the land to be included within the boundaries of the adjoining street. The plaintiffs assert that such unlawful action on the part of the Corporation had rendered it necessary for them to obtain a declaration of their title and an injunction so as to secure them from future interference. The defendant Corporation resisted the claim on the ground that the land was not the property of the plaintiffs, that the drain was a part and parcel of the public street and that it was in any...
Kshetra Nath Bhuiya Vs. Kali Dasi Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.929
1. We are invited in this Rule to determine the forum where the plaintiff can obtain relief in respect of his claim. The plaintiff sues to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 466. He asserts that he was entitled to get Rs. 448 for salary, Rs. 367 as money borrowed for the benefit of the defendant, and Rs. 76 as house rent, that is, Rs. 891 in the aggregate; he then allows credit for Rs. 425 and claims to recover Rs. 466. The plaint adds that if the correctness of the amounts is questioned, the amount due may be determined on examination of the accounts. The suit thus framed was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Jessore on the 11th December 1913. Summons was served upon the defendant in due course. She entered appearance and pleaded that the suit was cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and was consequently not triable by the Munsif under Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. An issue was thereupon raised, whether the suit was cognizable by a Court of Small ...
Satya Charan Mukherjee Vs. Dinanath Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1916
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.516
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal which arises out of a suit for money is preferred against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, reversing the decision of the Munsif. The facts as found are these: The defendants Nos. 1 to 7 are the owners of a putni taluq. The putni was brought to sale by a co-sharer zemindar and was sold under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as if under a money-decree. The purchase was made ostensibly in the name of the plaintiff and after the date of the purchase but before the confirmation of the sale, the plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs. 1,157-15 5 gundas in order to preserve and save the property from being sold under the terms of the Putni Regulation. The sale to the plaintiff was subsequently set aside on the ground of irregularity and the plaintiff brought his suit to recover the sum of Rs. 1,157-15 5 gundas paid by him for the purpose of preserving the property from being sold under the Putni Regulation. The defence of the first six de...
Jagannath Panja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.286
1. This appeal is directed against three orders made under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The appellant, Jagannath Panja, along with another person, Sashi Bhusan Kandar, was en the 25th of April 1911 appointed guardian of the property of an infant named Manmotha Nath Panja. On the 31st July 1913, the respondent Mahesh Chandra Pal, who alleges that he is a brother of the step-mother of the infant, made an application to the District Judge and prayed that the guardians might be called upon to file and to explain the accounts. Notices were thereupon served on the guardians to appear and explain why they had not filed the accounts. Some accounts, which were then filed on behalf of the guardians, were examined by the translator; his report disclosed that the original account books and vouchers were required for the proper scrutiny of the accounts. Abstracts of accounts and vouchers were subsequently filed by the guardians and supplemental accounts also were brought into Court, which the...
Chandra Kanta Bhattacharjya and ors. Vs. Lakshan Chandra Chakrabartty ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.651
1. This appeal, preferred under Order XLVTI, Rule 7 (1$, of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, against an order granting an application for review of judgment on the ground of discovery of new evidence, is based on the reasons mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c), namely, first, that the application was in contravention of Clause (6) of the proviso to Rule 4, and secondly, that the application was made after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed therefor and without sufficient cause In our opinion, there is no force in either of these contentions.2. Clause (6) of the proviso to Rule 4 requires that no application for review, on the ground of discovery of new matter of evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced by him when the decree or order was passed or made, shall be granted without strict proof of such allegation. The appellants contended that the requirement of 'strict proof,' just mentioned, has not been fulfilled; thei...
AftabuddIn Chowdhury, Administrator to the Estate of Late Durga Churn ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1916
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.441
1. The facts of the cases which gave rise to these appeals may be stated shortly as follows:2. One Durga Charan Mookherjee died in 1898, leaving his son Madhu Sudhan an infant. Bistoo Charan brother of Durga Charan was appointed guardian under Act VIII of 1890 in respect of the properties of the minor on the 20th February 1900 and one Sarat Chandra Ray and three others' executed a security bond on the 13th June 1900 as sureties for Bistoo Charan. The order appointing Bistoo Charan as guardian was, however, set aside on appeal by the High Court on the 28th January 1902, and on the 23rd August 1904, one Rajani Kanta was appointed administrator of the estate. On the 27th January 1905, he brought a suit for accounts for the period of Bistoo Charan's management claiming Rs. 12,000 and odd and the sureties Sarat Chandra Ray and others were made defendants along with Bistoo Charan, After filing the suit application was made for attachment before judgment of the properties of Sarat Chandra, an...
Lochan Bhinmali and ors. Vs. Adhar Chandra Mahanta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.630
1. The plaintiff, Adhar Das Mahant, says he is the chela and heir of Guru Das Mahant deceased and as such brings a suit on a mortgage-bond executed by the defendants in favour of the said Guru Das Mahant.2. The main question fought out is whether the plaintiff is the heir of Guru Das. The first Court held he is not and the Court of First Appeal has held he is: the question before us is which is the correct view. Guru Das was a Barui by caste and admittedly a Sudra. He could not, therefore, become a yati or sanyasi according to the Smritis. He could not and did not become a yati or sanyasi but he became a byragee. The learned Judge finds: From the evidence we find that Guru Das entered the order of the byragees and was cut off once for all from his family and society and till his death acquired properties and left them at his death. He initiated the plaintiff as his principal disciple called chela and nominated him as his successor', and further on, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Gobinda Prasad Barik a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.934
Fletcher, J.1. These are three appeals by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council.2. The three suits out of which these appeals arise were brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapur under the provisions of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs at a recent Settlement had been entered in the Record of Rights as tenure-holders. Accordingly they brought these suits asking that they were raiyats with a right of occupancy in lands in question. At the trial the learned Subordinate Judge decided in their favour. Hence the present appeals by the appellant. The sole question involved in these appeals is, therefore, what is the status of the plaintiffs. In suits of this nature one has to bear in mind what are the rules laid down by Statute for determining whether the person is a tenure-holder or a raiyat.3. Section 5, Sub-section 1, of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides that 'tenure-holder' means primarily a person who has acquired...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »