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.
In Re: Babu Rasik Lal and Nag, a Muktear
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.980
1. This is a report made under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act by the Munsif of Kustea, through the District Judge of Nadia. The Munsif has recommended disciplinary action against Rasik Lal Nag, a Muktear practising in his Court, and the District Judge has in his opinion endorsed the views of the Munsif. The circumstances which led the Munsif to take action under Section 14 may be briefly stated.2. On the 7th January 1916, Kisori Lal Chatterjee, accountant in the office of the Munsif of Kustea, reported that while he was busy with hia work in his office room, the Muktear, Rasik Lal Nag, interrupted him, seriously threatened him, and, when asked to keep quiet, vilely abused him. The Munsif, who held his Court in an adjoining room, had himself heard the altercation. He, accordingly, issued a notice on the Muktear under Section 14, which set out the substance of the charge, and called upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for grossly impr...
Moti Bouli Vs. Bhagawan Misri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.655
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 5th December 1914, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Howrab, dated the 30tb August 1913. The plaintiff was the elder brother of the deceased husband of the defendant No. 1, who is the appellant before us. Apparently, the plaintiff and his brother came to Calcutta from the North-Western Pi evinces. They came here to work as coolies. There is nothing to suggest that, in that condition, they had any nucleus of the joint family estate. They did work and did save money. There is no evidence to show that that money was ever put into a common till or treated as money belonging to the two brothers representing a joint Hindu family. All the evidence that the learned Judge had before him was that they worked as coolies and, out of the money they so earned, they purchased a house. The learned Judge, on that evidence, has found that these two brothers bought the house out of a joint fund...
Upendra Lal Gupta and ors. Vs. Ataulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.404
Appeal No. 3957 of 1913.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent on the basis of a Kabuliat, dated the 25th August 1884. The Kabuliat after describing the land let out states the Sunder jama as Rs. 21-7 3, the enhanced rent for hadish collection charges Rs. 3-1-0, the total jama being described as Rs. 24-8-3, which together with certain other items which are not in dispute came up to the grand total of Rs. 29-4 0. The total amount of Rs. 29 4-0 is made payable in 4 instalments and the tenant agrees to pay the aforesaid rent according to the tests mentioned above.' Then the Kabuliat goes on to say: If we fail to do so, we shall not take any objections to your realising the rent together with interest for breach of instalment at the rate of 1 anna and damages at the rate of 4 annas per rupee per mensem by causing this taluk to be sold by auction twice in the year according to Act VIII of 1819, and by bringing a suit according to the laws that are now or may in future be in force and ...
Anadi Krishna Dutta and ors. Vs. Priya Sankar Majumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.375
Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Faridpore under Order XXIII, Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order recording a petition of compromise. The plaintiffs in the suit in which this order was passed asked for a declaration that certain lands, described in the plaint by the numbers of the days in the settlement map, appertained to char darai, of which they claimed to be entitled to a nine-annas odd share. They also asked for recovery of possession and mesne profits. There were originally 16 defendants but defendant No. 16 died during the pendency of the suit and his three minor sons were substituted for him. All these defendants except defendants Nos. 3, 9 and 12 contested the suit. The plaintiffs' right to the share claimed was not disputed. Ten issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties, but we are not concerned with these and they have not been included in the paper-book. It is sufficient here to state that the importa...
Fani Bhusan Sarkar Vs. PulIn Chandra Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.838
Fletcher, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether, on the facts found, the case comes within the special rule of limitation contained in Article 3 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The present appellant, the defendant No. 1, claims as6ttle-rnent from the defendant No. 3, who is admittedly the landlord, after dispossession of the plaintiffs. The question is whether that dispossession falls within the terms of Article 3 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendant No. 3 in addition to being the landlord received from the defendant No. 2 a mortgage, which is said to be for the arrears of rent. Default was made in payment of the mortgage-money and in a suit brought to enforce the mortgage security, the holding of the plaintiffs was brought to sale'-and purchased by the landlord. The landlord then obtained possession of the property through the Court and subsequently settled the appellant on the land. That, it is said, is not a case falling within Articl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›