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.
Chandra Mandal and ors. Vs. Ram Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.738
1. We accept the reference; and, in the result, the order is quashed....
Syam Mandal Vs. Sati Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.493
1. We are invited in this Rule to examine the legality of an order made in proceedings in execution of a decree in a suit for ejectment of a tenant on the ground of forfeiture for misuse of lands of his tenancy.2. The petitioner was an occupancy ryot under the opposite party and was consequently liable under Section 25 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to be ejected by his landlords from his holding in execution of a decree for ejectment, passed on the ground that he had used the land comprised in his holding in a manner which rendered it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy. In 1012, the landlords instituted a suit against him under Section 155(1)(a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act to eject him on the ground that he had excavated a tank on his holding which rendered it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on the 6th November 1914 in the following terms: 'the defendant do fill up the tank by the end of the present Bengali year 1321 (i.e., 13th April 1915) o...
Srimati Bibijan Bibi and ors. Vs. Abdul Jabbar Daftary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.919
Fletcher, J.1. This is an anneal from an order of the learner Subordinate Judge of Howrah, dated the 8th July 1914. The order appealed against is an order dismissing the application of the appellants before us to be added as co-plaintiffs in a certain suit. That was the form of the application and that is the form of the prayer, we must take it, to this Court. The suit was brought by the original plaintiff for a declaration that a certain deed of gift was fraudulent and for partition of the property comprised therein. The suit was instituted in the month of January 1914. On the 15th February 1914, a document called a wahfnama was executed by the original plaintiff in favour of himself and the infant appellant with a declaration that, if the original plaintiff became incapacitated, then the other appellant Srimati Bibiian Bibi should act as the other mutawalli in his place. On the 28th February 914, the defendants filed a written statement. Issues were then settled between the parties a...
Shashi Bhushan Banerjee Vs. Charushila Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.809
APPEAL No. 5331. It is admitted in this case that no appeal lies from the order of the learned District Judge. The appeal therefore must be dismissed with costs--one gold mohur.ROLE NO 315.2. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The petitioner before us is the judgment-debtor. A decree had been passed against him for about Rs. 700. A property said to be to the extent of 150 big has was attached and sold in execution of that decree. The purchaser was the decree-holder and the purchase-money was Rs. 250. The delivery of possession was made on the 2nd May 1914. Then the judgment-debtor came forward with an application under Order XXI Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. On that application the decree-holder who was the purchaser seems to have treated the judgment-debtor not unfairly. He said that if he got the whole amount of the decree within a certain time he could be willing to give back the property to the judgm...
F.A. Brown Vs. Ananda Lal Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.857
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the petitioner, Mr. Brown, on the 25th of February 1915, laid an information at the Chitpore Police Station, charging one A.L. Mullick, who was the Managing Director of the company in which Mr. Brown was a share holder, with the theft of certain steel joists and other articles belonging to the company. The Engineer of the company was charged with aiding and abetting the alleged offence, The Sub-Inspector after investigating the matter refused to take action upon the information.2. Thereupon, the petitioner, on the 1st of March 1915, lodged a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer of Sealdah, and the charge which was alleged in that complaint was under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code against A.L. Mullick, namely, theft, and against the Engineer, for aiding and abetting that offence.3. This was sent by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Honorary Magistrate at Sealdah for disposal.4. Before the Honorary Magistrate the petitioner was examine...
Srimati Thakamoyi Dassi Vs. Nadiar Chand Palmal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.939
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Midnapore, dated the 13th May 1915, reversing the order of the Munsif of the same place. The appeal involves only one question and that is whether the execution of a decree is barred by limitation. The learned District Judge in a long and carefully considered judgment has come to the conclusion that the decree is barred. I agree with the learned District Judge in the reasons he has given, except in one particular and that is when he states that the case is one of some difficulty, because the view 1 take is that a more easy case on the Statute has never fallen to the lot of the Court to decide. Section 15 of the Indian Limitation Act, which the appellant admits she must bring herself under if she wishes to succeed in this appeal, is in these terms: in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or application for the execution of a decree, the institution or execution of which has been stayed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›