Kolkata Court August 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.
Annada Mohun Roy Chowdhury Vs. ManiruddIn Mahomed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.392
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution. It appears that the plaintiff held a jote jointly with defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 under defendant No. 6, who is the landlord. The plaintiff, however, was not recognised as a tenant by defendant No. 6, who brought a suit for rent against defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree he attached the jote and the plaintiff thereupon deposited the decretal amount in Court and prevented the sale. He now brings this suit for contribution against defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 in respect of the amount payable by them for their shares in the jote, and the defendant No. 6, the landlord, has also been joined in the suit on the ground that if he had already received the rent payable by the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 from them, a decree might be passed against defendant No. 6 for recovery of the amount claimed minus the amount payable by the plaintiff in respect of his share.2. The Court of first instance dis...
Sarat Chandra Basu Vs. Sreemati Swarnomoye Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.615
1. In the suit out of which this rule arises the plaintiff, as the owner in possession sued for declaration of title, damages in respect of certain acts of trespass and an injunction. He valued the reliefs sought at Rs.160, namely Rs.95 in respect of the injunction and Rs. 65 by way of damages.2. Both Courts below have held that the valuation of the suit should be the market value of the land to which it relates and as they have found this value to be Us, 4,000, they have held that the suit is not triable in the Court of the Munsif.3. It appears that the plaintiff's immediate predecessor was a lady. According to the plaintiff she had a limited interest while the defendants apparently resist plaintiff's claim on the strength of a miraspatla executed by her.4. Both the Courts below appear to have supposed that the decision in this suit would have the effect of setting aside the miras patta as a whole and in valuing the suit have therefore, taken the value of the whole area comprised in t...
Gosta Behari Biswas and anr. Vs. Sankar Nath Mukerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.510
1. The question for decision in this Rule is, whether a transferee of immoveable property, which has been attached in execution of a decree for money, is competent to make an application for cancellation of the sale under Rule 89 of Order XXI of the Code of 1908. The decree-holder attached the disputed property on the 30th July 1914. On the 9th September 1914, the judgment-debtor transferred the property to the opposite party. On the 11th December 1914, the property was put up to sale in execution of the decree and was purchased by the petitioner. On the 7th January 1915, the transferee from judgment-debtor applied under Order XXI, Rule 89. The execution Court on the 20th February 1915 held that he had no locus standi and dismissed his application. On appeal the District Judge reversed his order on the 25th April 1916. We are now invited to hold that the District Judge should have affirmed the view of the Primary Court, that the transferee from the judgment-debtor had no locus standi t...
Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta Vs. Chandra Kanta Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.749
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed -against a decree made in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, in a suit instituted by him against the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. The allegations in the plaint, which form the basis of the claim, may be briefly summarised. The plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 40-10 Chaulpati Road within the Municipal limits of Calcutta, recently sub-divided into Nos. 40-10 and 40-10-1, The area comprised therein is more than one-and-a-half bighas and is situated at a distance of about 126 feet away to the west of the present Russa Road, whereof Chaulpati Road is a branch. Since his purchase of the land, the plaintiff had filled up a large tank that lay within the boundaries thereof, baa raised its level and made it fit for building purposes, had contracted, with the sanction of the Municipal Corporation, a two storied building on a portion of the land, and had collected materials for the erection of other suitable buildings thereon. Wh...
Abu Hamid Zahir Ala Vs. Golam Sarwar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.422
1. We are invited in this appeal to consider the propriety of an order of dismissal of an application under paragraph 17 of the Second Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for the enforcement of a private award. The relevant portion of the agreement of reference was in these terms:Considering it desirable to decide the matters in dispute by arbitrators and so appointing the above-mentioned gentlemen as arbitrators, we execute this deed of reference and agree that the award, which all the arbitrators unanimously or the majority of the arbitrators will make, will be accepted as a decree of a superior Court and will have force and be valid at all places. In case of difference of opinion among the arbitrators, the majority of them will make and be competent to make their award unanimously. To that no objection by any of us will be entertained nor shall we be competent to make any.' Under this instrument, five gentlemen were appointed arbitrators, three of whom alone signed the award...
Purna Chandra Chabri and anr. Vs. Tara Prosad Maiti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.600
Fletcher, J.1. These are two appeals from the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Midnapur. Appeal No. 391 is preferred against the orders dated the 20th June and the 16th July 1914 arid Appeal No. 426 is preferred against the order dated the 1st August 1914. Appeal No. 391 is infructuous because the learned Judge subsequently passed an order canceling the orders dated the 20th June and the 16th July 1914 against which that appeal has been preferred. That appeal is accordingly dismissed. 'We are now concerned only with Appeal No. 426 which is preferred against the order of the 1st August 1914. The plaintiff in this case has applied for leave to sue in forma pauperis. That application has not yet been judicially determined; it is still pending before the Court. But before the determination of that application, the plaintiff applied to the Court and obtained an order of attachment before judgment under the provisions of Order XXXVIII, Rules 5 and 6 of the Code of Civil Proc...
Upendra Nath Choudhury Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.805
Sanderson, C.J.1. We think that in this case the safest course is to make the Rule absolute.2. There is no doubt whatever that the Head Constable took the two rupees, but that is of course not sufficient to convict him of the offence with which he was charged. The offence with which he was charged was one under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and in order to convict him of that offence, it must be proved that he accepted the two rupees 'as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering, or attempting to render, any service or disservice to any person....'3. Now Madan has given contradictory explanations of the condition upon which the Head Constable received the two rupees and the learned Sessions Judge has evidently come to the conclusion that his evidence cannot be relied upon. He says that Madan evidently was tampered with; and...
Sarat Chandra Madak and ors. Vs. Mobarak Mallik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.465
1. In this case the dispute was with reference to the right to collect tolas, or small perquisites, from Dewangunge hut. The first party on behalf of the local Mahomedans was claiming the right to collect the tolas only on one day every year, for performing a certain religious ceremony. The second parties who were Hindus were objecting to this, saying that the Mahomedans had no such right to collect tolas from the hat as alleged by the first party.2. Now, the first ground upon which this Rule was issued was that the case was not one falling within Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the reason why it is alleged that the case did not come within that Section was that the dispute was not one concerning the right of use of any land.3. Now, in our opinion, it was a dispute concerning the right of use of land. As far as I can understand, the facts of this case show that the hat was held every week in the particular village. It was held always on the same vacant piece of ground s...
Baikantha Nath Dey and ors. Vs. Mohesh Chandra Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.77
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 19th March 1915, modifying the order of the Munsif of the 3rd Court at Bishenpur. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs as the purchasers of the equity of redemption in a certain property. The defendant was the mortgagee under an usufructuary mortgage. It is found by both the lower Courts, and not denied, that the time for redemption has arrived. The learned Munsif decreed redemption. On appeal to the learned District Judge he remanded the case to the first Court. The first point on which the learned Judge remanded the case was that the plaintiffs, as he held, were entitled to redeem only in respect of an undivided 2/3rds share in the property subject to the mortgage. The learned Judge, acting on the decision in the case of Girish Chunder Dey v. Juramoni De 5 C.W.N. 83 came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem only a portion of the property. The decision on wh...
Dhirendra Nath Sarkar and ors. Vs. Nischintapore Company by their Atto ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.398
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors against an order for execution of a decree for arrears of rent. On the 25th February 1911, the respondents as plaintiffs instituted a suit for rent against the appellants as defendants, who held under them three distinct tenancies under three separate contracts. In ordinary course the landlords would have instituted three different suits for rent in respect of the arrears due But they preferred to institute one suit for the recovery of the arrears, as they were entitled to unite in one suit different causes of action against the same set of defendants under Rule 3, Order II, of the Code of Civil Procedure. They realised, however, that if a decree was obtained for the entire sum due, such decree could not, as held in a long line of authorities in this Court, be executed as a decree for rent against any of the tenures Malick Chand Das v. Satish Chandra Das 3 Ind. Cas. 306 : 11 C.L.J. 56 : 16 C.W.N. 335 and Rashmohni Dasi v. Debendra Nath Singh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »