Kolkata Court January 1917 Judgments
Aswini Kumar Nag Majumdar, Vs. Madhu Sudan Pal Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.865
Walmsley, J.1. These five appeals arise out of suits filed simultaneously by co-sharer landlords against their common tenant, for what may be called rent, as a convenient term. Three of the suits were tried by a Munsif, and the appeals were heard by a Subordinate Judge. Two others were tried by the Subordinate Judge, and the appeals were heard by the District Judge.2. There is only one point for decision and it is common to all the suits and appeals, but it was decided in favour of the defendant by the Subordinate Judge and in favour of the plaintiffs by the District Judge. The result is that the three appeals of 1913 have been filed by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge and the two appeals of 1914 by the defendant against the decision of the learned District Judge.3. The facts that have given rise to the appeals are as follows. The plaintiffs, as landlords, granted leases to the defendant, in 1293 B.S., and one of the conditions was that the lessee sh...
Tag this Judgment!Parasulla Mallick Vs. Chandra Kanta Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.177
D. Chatterjee, J.1. I am not quite satisfied that the parties were quite ad idem in respect of the kistbandi agreement. The learned Subordinate Judge says the defendant was in a destitute condition and I find it impossible to believe that he agreed to pay Rs. 1,200 within a fortnight, knowing that if he failed to do so the plaintiff would not only be entitled to realise the whole consideration at once but to resume the working of the gahana boat line. The learned Vakil for the respondent wanted to show that about two years after the contract he had a deposit of Rs. 1,500 in the Bank. Even if this could be shown at this stage of the case from a document put-side the record, I do not think it would throw much light on the situation at the time of the kistbandi. On the other hand, this might be due to savings thereafter made from the boat business. I cannot, therefore, believe that the contents of the document were fully explained to or understood by him. The evidence is that the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Kala Chand Shaha and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.844
D. Chatterjee, J.1. Upon the findings this case seems to be one of considerable hardship. The plaintiff delivered a parcel containing valuable Dacca muslin, etc., to the Eastern Bengal Railway on the 24th February 1915 for conveyance to Calcutta. On the 26th February the parcel reached in a damaged condition and open delivery was given to the consignee at his request showing the goods that were missing. It is admitted that they must have been stolen by some Railway servant. The plaintiff at once gave notice to the Traffic Manager as required by the rules printed in the Time and Fare Table. Time after time the Traffic Manager wrote to say that the matter was under enquiry and at last on the 30th August 1915, several days after the expiry of six months from delivery, wrote to the plaintiff that his claim was not admissible as he had not insured the goods as required by Section 75 of the Act. The plaintiff on the 13th September 1915 gave notice to the Agent, who referred the matter to the...
Tag this Judgment!Hadish Bapari Vs. Bogamulla Sheik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.787
1. This is an appeal against an order refusing the application of the appellant to be appointed and declared guardian of the parson and property of his minor daughter under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The learned District Judge has refused the application, on the ground that according to the Sunni school of Muhammadans, which prevails in this case, the mother's mother has a preferential claim over the father to the custody of an infant on the death of the mother and also on the ground that it will be in the best interests of the minor that she should remain for the present with her mother's relations. These are good grounds for refusing the appellant's application to be appointed guardian of the person of the minor but no sufficient reason has been given why he should not be declared guardian of her property. According to Muhammadan Law he has a preferential claim to be the minor's guardian for this purpose. Though the Guardians and Wards Act gives to the Judge power of appointi...
Tag this Judgment!Zamir Munshi Vs. Bisseswari Debya ChowdhuraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.544
D. Chatterjee, J.1. In this case certain tenants sold portions of their occupancy holdings to the principal defendant and surrendered those portions only to the landlord and took from him leases at an enhanced rent in respect of the residue of their holdings. The landlord by virtue of the surrender wants to eject the principal defendant. The first Court disallowed the prayer for khas possession and the lower Appellate Court has allowed it. The question before us is whether the decree for khas possession is right. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court finds support in the cases of Tamizuddin Khan v. Khoda Nawaz Khan 5 Ind. Cas. 116 : 14 C.W.N. 229 : 11 C.L.J. 16 and Ramoni Mohan Roy v. Kalimuddi 17 Ind Cas. 682 : 17 C.W.N. 1101. It is contended, however, that these cases were wrongly decided and in any case are no longer binding authorities, as they are inconsistent with the later Full Bench ruling in Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy 27 Ind. cas. 61 : 18 C.W.N 971 20 C.L.J 52 : 2 C. 172...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Neogi Vs. Sarat Sundari Debya Widow of Kailash Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.103
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bogra, dated the 2nd August 1915, affirming a decision of the Munsif of the same place. The first appeal is by the defendant. The step-mother of the defendant, who appears to be a young widow, brought the suit to recover the arrears of annuity given to her under the Will of her late husband, the father of the plaintiff. The defence was that the annuity was not payable under the terms of the Will. Both the lower Courts, after considering the Will, have come to the conclusion that the annuity is payable. The annuity was given to the plaintiff by the 6th clause of her late husband's Will. We have not got an official translation of the Will, but the translation given to us by the learned Vakil who has conducted the case for the appellant may be taken as correct. It runs in these terms: 'My second wife, Srimutty Sarat Sundari Debi living permanently in my place of abod' or family dwelling-house will get for...
Tag this Judgment!Subal Chandra Chowdhury Vs. Mosaraf Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.476
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, daled the 15th December 1914, affirming the decision of the Officiating Munsif of Hathhazari. The plaintiff brought the present suit for ejectment. He brought former suit arid the leave of the Court had been obtained to withdraw that former suit. This appeal turns solely upon the construction to be placed upon the order in the previous suit giving leave to withdraw. The words of the order are as follows: 'The appeal is accordingly decreed and the plaintiff given the permission to institute a fresh suit and that he should pay the defendant-respondent the costs of this appeal and of the original suit with interest at six per cent, as a condition precedent to his instituting a fresh suit.' It is found by both the lower Courts that the plaintiff had not complied with the condition precedent before he instituted the fresh suit. It is said that the plaintiff had a right to pay the money after the institution of...
Tag this Judgment!Kunja Behari Raha Vs. Jogendra Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.293
1. The question raised in this Rule is whether the decree of the Small Cause Court in this case was barred by limitation. The last application for execution of the decree was made more than three years previous to the present application and prima facie the present application is barred. The decree-holder, however, relied upon certain payments made by the judgment-debtor within three years of the application; but the fact of the payments did not appear in the handwriting of the judgment-debtor or of his agent duly authorized in that behalf, The decree was to bear no interest and the payments, therefore, in order to bring the case under Section 20 of the Limitation Act, ought to have been in the handwriting of the judgment-debtor. It is contended that the decree included interest and that, therefore, the payment of interest would bring the case under Section 20. But the original claim for interest became merged in the decree; and, as the decree did not bear any interest, any payment mad...
Tag this Judgment!Bisan Ram Patri Vs. Satis Chandra Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.216
1. The plaintiff, in execution of a decree against one Ilim Sheikh, obtained delivery of possession from Court on the 14th June 1900. The defendant thereupon raised an objection in the execution Court that he had, in execution of a mortgage-decree, obtained possession of the property on the 5th of May 1900, and was in possession of the property by letting out the same to the heirs of the judgment-debtor Ilim. The Court executing the decree enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that the defendant had failed to prove that he was in possession or that the judgment-debtor's heirs were in possession as his tenants. The objection raised by the defendant was, therefore, disallowed under Section 335 though, in the proceedings, the Section is mentioned as Section 332. That mistake, however, does not affect the question, because the question to be considered in a proceeding under Section 335 appears to have been considered by the Court. An order under Section 335 is final against a...
Tag this Judgment!Baroda Charan Dhar Vs. Ershad Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.520
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge of Chittagong dated the 3rd January 1914, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Fatikcheri. The suit was brought for rent. The question in debate in the present appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to rent as a patnidar. The patni was mortgaged to the plaintiff by one who, in the course of these proceedings, has been called K, Subsequent to this mortgage the zemindar obtained a decree for rent against K. under the Bengal Tenancy-Act. In the sale that followed, the patni was purchased by the defendant No. 25 in the present suit, who is the son of K,, on the 12th November 1904. Defendant No. 25 took no steps for annulling the mortgage under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Subsequently, a suit was brought by the plaintiff on his mortgage to which suit both K. and the present defendant No. 25 were parties. A decree was passed in that suit, the property was sold in execution and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »