Kolkata Court December 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.
Rup Chand Ghose Vs. Srimati Khirodamayi Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1917
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.567
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. The only point for consideration in this appeal relates to the question of Court-fee payable on the plaint in the suit out of which this apeal arises.2. The prayers in the plaint are as follows:--(ka) That the Court may he pleased to declare that the plaintiff's purchase of the paternal right inherited by defendant No. 2 in the properties described in Schedule (ka) and (kha) below is valid and binding on the defendants under the circumstances stated above.(Kha) That the Court may be pleased to declare alter a true construction of the Will of the deceased Puran Chandra Mahata, that the estate left by him was fully administered at the time the Probate was taken and that the executrixes to his estate were not competent to retain possession of his estate as executrixes and that the said Probate is now only an inoperative instrument.(Ga) That the Court may be pleased to declare, that the defendants by their conduct and acts and deeds are estopped from claiming any sort...
Muralidhar Chamaria Vs. M.R. Dalmia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1917
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.120
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order which was made by my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves on the 10th of December this year, by which he refused an application by the defendant for leave to file his written statement.2. The material dates are as follows: The plaint was filed on the 14th of August 1917: it was served on the defendant on the 21st of August, and the defendant was required to put in his written statement within two weeks from the date of service, so that he should have filed his written statement on or about the 4th of September this year. I ought to have mentioned that the defendant appeared on the 29th of August. He did not put in his written statement within the specified time: and on the 26th of November the plaintiff applied for an order that the defendant should be required to file his written statement: and on that date the Registrar made the following order: 'it is ordered that the defendant do within one week from the date hereof file his...
Guru Prosanna Lahiri and ors. Vs. Munshi SamiruddIn Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.465
1. These 15 Rules arise out of 15 suits for arrears of rent instituted three in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and twelve in the Court of the Munsif of Goalpara. The suit is brought by the admitted landlord and as instituted was against one of the heirs of the original tenant, a person of the name of Taripat who died in 1316. The heirs other than the original defendant being eight in number, two sons of Taripat and six female heirs applied that they should be added as parties to the suit. Their application was opposed by the plaintiff mainly apparently on the ground that the original defendant, the eldest son of Taripat, was the person whose name was recorded in his sherista. But in dealing with the application of the remaining heirs the Courts below have found that they are in fact heirs of Taripat and are in possession equally with the first defendant in the holdings in question. On these facts we are unable to distinguish these oases from the case of Basli Bibi v. Hanif-ud-Din 6...
Mathura Dass Karnani Vs. Srikissen Karnani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.5
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Darjeeling, dated the 2nd March 1915, decreeing the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff brought his suit on the allegation that he was the adopted son of a deceased Hindu of the Maheswari caste of Bikaneer--the name of the person who had adopted being Amar Chand Karnani--and he sought to recover from Mathura Das Karnani and others, who were the natural relations of the deceased Amar Chand Karnani, a certain property and for consequential relief by way of accounts and discovery. The case set up by the plaintiff was that there was a Hindu of the Maheswari caste called Swairam Karnani. He had three sons, Katchi Das who was the father of Mathuradas, the defendant No. 1, Amar Chand Kernani the adoptive father of the plaintiff, and Jaithrupa who was the husband of the defendant No. 3. The plaint alleged that Amar Chand had been adopted by one Gangadas and, therefore, according to the o...
Rokun Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.284
Chitty, J.1. The appellant Rokun Ali was convicted by the 4th Presidency Magistrate of an offence under Section 9 of Act I of 1878, that is to say, of being in possession of opium without a license, and was sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300. The case for the prosecution depended on the evidence of the Excise Officers--Inspector Dinesh Chandrasen Gupta, Sub-Inspector, Kiran Chandra Gnha and Mojjum Hossain. There is also the evidence of Abdul Aziz the diver, who recovered a bundle of opium from the river, and of Tookal Ali Guasi, a Jamadar. On the second day of hearing Rai Sahib S.K. Raha, the Superintendent of Excise, was also called and he spoke to an admission made by the appellant, in which he confessed to being in possession of the opium and explained that he was taking it for shipment on a steamer on account of a Chinaman, whom he suggested the Superintendent should endeavour to arrest. The appellant called on his behalf a number of Castoma Offic...
Byamkesh Chuckerbutty Vs. Uday Chand Parui and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.737
1. This appeal is against an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Jessore by which he held that a certain decree was barred by the three years' rule of limitation to be found in Schedule III, Part III, Article 6, of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The decree was one for a sum pot exceeding Rs. 500 and was obtained by a co-sharer-landlord against a tenant in 1907 after the passing of Bengal Act I of that year The question for our determination is whether the three years' rule set out in the Article to which we have referred, or the twelve years' rule of limitation, that is, the general rule, is applicable. In three cases it has been held that the three years rule applies, those three cases being Thakomoni Dasi v. Mohendra Nath Dey Sarkar 3 Ind. Cas. 389 : 10 C.L.J. 463, Mrituynjoy v. Bhola Nath Datta 20 Ind. Cas. 833 : 18 C.L.J. 81, and an unreported case, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 562 of 1912. We agree in the view taken in those cases and that being so, we dismiss this appeal. No one appearin...
Kumar Birendra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Kumar Nripendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.681
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application by defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council The suit was brought by the plaintiff for the recovery and possession of certain property and for a declaration of the plaintiffs' right thereto. The defendants were sued in their individual capacity.2. The first Court dismissed the suit where-upon there was an appeal to the High Court and the matter came before Mr. Justice Chatterjea and Mr. Justice Smither, and the judgment shows that the learned Judges were inclined to think that the defendants ought not to have been sued in their personal capacity and the conclusion at which they arrived was this: 'We think that under these circumstances and in order effectually and completely to adjudicate all the questions involved in the case, the defendants Nos 2 and 4 to 6 should be sued personally as well as executors and the defendant No 1 sued as the residuary legatee and heir of Jogendra Nath.'3. Mr. Chakerbutty for the a...
Ram Lal Mandal and ors. Vs. Asutosh Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.445
1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution. It appears that a co-sharer landlord brought a suit for rent against tenants 21 in number and made his co-sharers parties to the suit. They were defendants Nos. 22 to 41. In the result there was a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendants Nos. 1 to 21 for the sum of Rs. 76 10 haras and in favour of the pro forma defendants Nos. 22 to 41 against the same tenants, defendants Nos. 1 to 21, for the sum of Rs. 380 3 gandas and 2 haras. In the present proceedings the pro forma defendants Nos. 34 to 88 have applied for execution in respect of a sum of Rs. 285 and odd annas against defendants Nos. 7 to 14 or according to the Munsif, against Nos. 7 to 21.2. In this appeal in view of the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 15 and 19, two objections have been taken. It is contended in the first place that the applicants should have prayed for execution of the whole decree made in favour of the defendants Nos. 22 to 41, that is to sa...
The Bengal Coal Company, Limited and Elias Meyer Vs. Monoranjan Bagchi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.297
Fletcher, J.In R.A. No. 31 of 1915.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 from the judgment of the learned Second Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 18th of September 1914.2. The plaintiff brought the suit as assignee of a mining lease for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The leases which have been granted of the property appear to be as follows:The first lease (the date of which does not appear) was of 66 bighas granted to one Mr. D. Smith. This interest is now vested in the Bengal Coal Company.3. The next lease is dated the 25th of April 1856 and was granted to Messrs, Gordon Stuart and Co. on behalf of the Bengal Coal Co. The lease was by the 16-annas maliks of approximately 800 bighas of patit danga land' at a rent of 8 annas a bigha. The lease granted both the surface and mineral rights. On the 13th of May 1901 the Bengal Coal Co. underleased their rights to the Barabani Coal Co.4. By a lease, dated the 20th of August 1874, the 12-annas co-sharers granted a leas...
Chandra Mohan Nanda Vs. Empreror
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.822
1. We think that in this case the Rule should be made absolute. The statements made by the witness whose prosecution for perjury has been ordered do not appear to be deliberate false statements so much as statements slightly discrepant due to inaccuracy of mind. It does not appear from the witness' deposition that he was desirous of saving the accused. Indeed, it appears that he actually sent word to the thana through the chaukidar. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, are quashed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »