Kolkata Court January 1917 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.
Akil Chandra Saha and ors. Vs. Girish Chandra Saha, Executor to the Es ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.302
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage bond. The mortgage bond was executed by the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 3 as guardian of her minor son, the defendant No. 2, and another minor son since deceased. The execution of the bond is admitted but it is pleaded that no consideration passed under it. The defendants' case appears to be that on the death of Madhu Sudan the father of Akhil, the latter and his brothers were threatened with the liability for a large amount of money on account of some dealings that the deceased had with one Kishori Mohan and that in order to frighten the latter to reduce his claim, it was arranged with Hari Mohan, who was a friend of Madhu Sudan, that a bogus mortgage bond should be executed in his favour for Rs. 4,000 and that some false and satisfied bonds should be shown as due and permission be taken by the defendant No. 3, who was the guardian of her minor, sons, from the District Judge for raising the money on mortgage, that in ...
Jagabandhu Dutt Vs. Rajani Kanta Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1917
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.790
1. These are two appeals preferred against a decision of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 13th February 1914, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Satkhira. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover a share in a certain revenue-paying estate sold at a revenue sale for arrears of revenue and said to have been purchased by the defendant No. 1 in the benami name of the defendant No. 2 and alternatively he asked that if the sale was a valid sale, he might be given his share in the surplus sale-proceeds which had been withdrawn from the Collectorate by the defendant No. 1. The case came on for trial before the Munsif who found, first of all, that the defendant No. 2 was a benamidar of the defendant No. 1 and that the real purchaser was, in fact, the defendant No. 1. The learned Munsif also found, for reasons which commended themselves to him, that as between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the share he sued for, less a part...
AlimaddIn Vs. AinaddIn Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.534
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Tipperah, dated the 10th December 1914, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Comillah. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant, the plaintiff claiming that he was a raiyat and the defendant was an under-raiyat who held the property on a lease for seven years, the term of which had expired. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court in reversing the judgment of the Munsif found that the defendant was a raiyat and that his term had expired, and that, therefore, he was liable to ejectment.2. The points raised in this appeal are two. First of all it is said that the plaintiff is hot a raiyat but that He has got the interest of a permanent tenure-holder. It appears from the facts found that the plaintiff along with others owns the tenure. The plaintiff himself bought up the raiyati interest in this holding. He then underlet it by this registered lease to the defen...
Pran Krishna Das Vs. Protap Chandra Dalai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.536
John Woodroffe, J.1. A preliminary objection which has been taken is to the effect that one of the respondents named Sarada Prosad Dalai is dead and no steps have been taken to have his legal representative, his minor son, brought on the record. This, however, under the circumstances, is no bar to the appeal; and the only effect of it is this, that the appeal will operate as against the respondents other than the respondent Saroda Prosad Dalai and his representatives.2. Then it is objected that the present application for execution should, apart from the question of limitation, be dismissed on the ground that it is not in accordance with the form's required by the Civil Procedure Code, in that it does not set out the mode of assistance which is sought from the Court; and it is said that the Court, having by an oversight admitted and registered the application which is not in form, cannot allow it to be amended into a valid application within the meaning of the provisions of the Code. T...
Beatrice Alice De Ste Croix Vs. Philip De Ste Croix
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.447
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Greaves, J., given on the 11th April 1916, by Beatrice Alice De Ste Croix, who was the respondent in divorce proceedings brought against her by her husband on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent.2. The learned Judge granted a decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage. The adultery was admitted by the respondent, and the appeal was based on allegations:--- (1) that the petitioner had condoned the adultery complained of, (2) that the petition was presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent, (3) that the petitioner had been guilty of such wilful neglect or misconduct as bad conduced to the adultery and (4) that the petitioner had deserted the respondent without reasonable cause.3. As regards the first point the learned Judge held that the petitioner had not condoned the offence.4. Condonation is a conclusion of fact, not of law, and means the complete forgiveness and blotting out of a conjugal offence followed b...
Asrafulla Sarkar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.422
1. In this case the petitioner Asrafulla was the Secretary of the M.E. School at Pirgunge from 20th February 1912 to 7th December 1914, while the second petitioner Tasiruddin, who is the son of Asrafulla, was the 3rd teacher therein.2. In the present proceedings the charge framed against them was that in the course of the year 1914 they had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 177-14-9. This sum was the aggregate of 13 distinct items.3. In respect of nine of the thirteen items the prosecution failed in the Trial Court, and in the Appellate Court the prosecution farther failed in respect of three items out or the remaining four. There is left an item of Rs. 12-14-6 Said to have been misappropriated on 30th November 1914.4. It is clear that as regards this item the conviction cannot be sustained. Though on the face of the charge it appears to be one properly framed under the provisions of Section 222(2) of the Code, yet on closer examination, it appears, that is ...
Brojendro Kissore Roy Chowdhury Vs. the Hindusthan Co-operative Insura ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.705
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Brojendro Kissore Roy Chowdhury, the second defendant, against the judgment of Chandhuri, J., whereby he held that the claim against the second defendant was not barred by the Statute of Limitations. The facts of the case are not in dispute and are fully set out in the learned Judge's judgment as follows:2. This is a suit on a promissory note against defendant No. 1 as the principal debtor and No. 2 as surety. They were interested in a Bank at the time the note was made and the money was apparently borrowed for it. The promissory note was executed by defendant No. 1 on the 25th April 1911, on the back of which defendant No. 2 made an endorsement on the same date, guaranteeing re-payment. The suit was instituted on the 12th November 1914. The plaint alleges that on the 13th November 1911, defendant No. 1, with the privity and knowledge of defendant No. 2 and at his request, paid to the plaintiff Corporation Rs. 200 on account of interest on the sai...
Nawab Jan and ors. Vs. Safiur Rahman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.882
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Greaves, J., and on the hearing of the appeal the arguments have bpen mainly addressed to the question whether the learned Judge's conclusion as to the validity and effect of the two deeds, dated 20th January 1906 and 27th January 1906, are correct. (The latter deed is referred to in the judgment of the learned Judge as being dated the 28th January 1906).2. These documents were executed in the form of heba-bil-ewaz or 'gift in exchange' and each deed contained a recital that Abdul Sutter had received two pieces of gold coin by way of consideration from the donees; the learned Judge, however, has found that there was no evidence of any consideration passing at the time of the execution of the deeds, but on the contrary the first defendant himself had in fact stated in his evidence that nothing was paid at the time of the execution of the deeds by his father.3. Consequently these deeds must, in my judgment, be treated a...
NabIn Chandra Chakrabutty Vs. Rajendra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.487
1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Noakhali and the opposite party to show cause why the appellate order of the District Magistrate, dated the 28th August 1916, should not be set aside and the re-trial of the appeal directed on the ground that in the appellate judgment he has fallen into serious error.2. What was found against the opposite parties in the judgment of the Trial Court was that in assertion of title to an 8-annas share in a certain homestead said to have been bought by one Mokunda Nag in the name of his wife a body of men, who appear to be servants of Mokunda Babu and numbering in all some 20 to 150 persons, entered upon the homestead, pulled down the walls or the complainant's cowshed, cut down trees on the homestead, plucked cocoanuts, removed timbers and plants and damaged the complainant's pots and pans. It was in fact found by the Trial Court that by reason of a prior purchase of the 8-annas share Mokunda Babu or his wife had derived no title, and...
Mohammed Soleman Vs. Raghu Nath Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.387
1. In this case a certain holding in the Manictola Municipality belonged to one Chand Bibi. Chand Bibi in 1910 sold it to one Asutosh Dey, who in August 1911 sold it to defendant No. 1. On the same date defendant No. 1 mortgaged the holding to a certain person who again assigned his mortgage-rights to the plaintiff in 1912. In 1914 this holding was sold by the Manictola Municipality for arrears of rates due from September 1910 for ten quarters and the property was purchased by defendant No. 2 in 1915. Upon the present suit being brought on the mortgage in 1912 by the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 contends that he has purchased the holding devoid of all encumbrances and that the plaintiff is not entitled to sell the same. The title of defendant No. 2 is derived under a sale under Section 361 of the Mofussil Municipal Act. That section authorises the Municipal Commissioners to sell a holding in arrears under certain circumstances and provides that any person may pay the amount due at any ti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »