Kolkata Court February 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.
HelaluddIn Mia's wife Innatunnessa Bibi Vs. Janaki Nath Sircar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.490
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale alleged to have been entered into by the defendant No. 5 as the guardian of defendants Nos. 2 to 4, who were minors, against the defendants Nos. 2 to 5, and also against defendant No. 1 who had purchased the property from the said defendants. The Court of First Instance dismissed the claim for specific performance of the contract but directed a refund of the earnest money against defendant No. 5. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, without entering into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the suit for specific performance of the contract against the minors was not maintainable on the authority of the oase of Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin Mahomed 13 Ind. Cas. 33l : 16 C.W.N. 74 : (1912) M.W.N. 2 : 9 A.L.J. 33 : 15 C.L.J. 69 : 11 M.L.T. 8 : 21 M.L.J.1156 : 39 I.A. l : 14 Bom. L.R. 5 : 39 C. 232. That case, however, has no application to the facts of the present case. There ...
Jagannath Mondul and ors. Vs. Jaladhar Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.839
Walmsley, J.1. The opposite party obtained a rent decree against the petitioners, and applied for execution by sale of the holding. The holding was advertised for sale on July 19, 1915. On July 16, 1915, however, a petition was filed purporting to be made by the decree-holder, certifying that he had received payment in full and asking for the execution case to be dismissed. On July 19, 1915, the learned Munsif dismissed the case on full satisfaction. On July 24, 1915, the decree-holder put in a petition saying that he had not received the money, that the certificate was a forgery, and asking for sanction to be granted under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, or a prosecution ordered under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. Again on August 6, 1915, the decree-holder put in two petitions asking that the order passed on July 19 should be cancelled and that the execution case should be allowed to proceed. On these petitions the Court held an enquiry into the circumstances, and on Feb...
Behari Lal Biswas Vs. Nasimannessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.694
Beachcroft, J.1. The petitioner is the holder of a tenure under a patni tenure. In 1309 in consequence of a default by the patnidar the petitioner deposited the patni rent in order to save his tenure and was put in possession of the patni under Section 13 of the Patni Regulation to discharge his lien. The interest of the superior landlord was subsequently transferred and in May last the pa'm was sold at the instance of the new landlord, inspite, the petitioner says, of his having deposited the amount due as patni rent. The petitioner has brought a suit to have the patni sale set aside and pending suit applied for an injunction to restrain the opposite party, the purchaser of the patni, from taking possession.2. The Munsif issued an injunction as prayed, but on appeal the District Judge ordered the injunction to be dissolved on the opposite party depositing, as she offered to do, the amount still due to the petitioner out of his original deposit, which he says has not yet been realised....
Ananda Mohan Roy Chowdhury Vs. Gurudayalsaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.979
1. We think this case was rightly decided by Mr. Justice P. Chatterjee. The appeal mast, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Haridas Datta Vs. Baidya Nath Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.646
Beachcroft, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the objection to the award of the arbitrators should not be upheld and the order of the Munsif confirming it set aside; or why such other order should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The petitioner is the defendant in a suit which was pending before the Munsif of Krishnagar. An application was made to the Munsif to appoint three gentlemen as arbitrators. One of these gentlemen Jogendra Nath Bhatta-charjee was a witness for the plaintiff. Another of them Lakhi Kanta Dey was a witness for the defendant. Both of them had appeared in Court. The third arbitrator nominated was Gokul Chandra Bandopadhya. During the course of the arbitration Jogendra Nath Bhattacharjee gave his evidence before the other arbitrators. The arbitration was not finished oft that day and it was postponed till the next day, when the petitioner put in an application before the arbitrators objecting to their going ...
Kailash Chandra Somaddar Vs. Revati Mohan Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.183
John Woodroffe, J.1. Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1363 of 1915 was dismissed by Mr. Justice Teunon and Mr. Justice Smither on the 4th of August 1916. An application for review of the judgment passed in the appeal was presented before Mr. Justice Teunon on the 28th of November 19(sic)6, when Mr. Justice Smither had ceased to be a Judge of this Court The application was rejected by Mr. Justice Teunon, sitting alone. Against the order rejecting the application for review this appeal is sought to be preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent. The papers have teen put before us for our orders upon the question as to whether the present appeal should be registered. It is suggested to us that we might direct the appeal to be registered subject to objection at the hearing. But in the present case no useful end would be served by such a course, seeing that we are prepared to deal with the matter at once.2. It has not been contested before us that Mr. Justice Teunon had jurisdiction to...
Madan Mohan Dey Vs. Nogendra Nath Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.640
1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act.2. The question for determination is, what is the Court-fee payable on an appeal from an order under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. Clause 6 of the Notification of the Government of India No. 4650, dated the 10th September 1889, prescribes a Court-fee of Rs. 2 on appeals from orders under Clause (c) of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act XIV of 1882. That Notification would, under the provisions of Section 157, apply to orders under Section 47(1) of the present Civil Procedure Code, which corresponds to Section 244, Clause (c), of the old Code. The question, therefore, is whether an order under Section 144 is an order which decides a question falling under Section 47(1) of the present Code.4. Under Section 583 of the old Code an application for restitution was treated as an application for execution of the appellate decree and it was expressly provided that the Court shall proceed...
Mahendra Chandra Datta and ors. Vs. Abhoy Charan Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.355
1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act and the question involved in the appeal is whether the appellant or the respondent should get the compensation awarded by the Collector.2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that the reference under Section 18 was barred by limitation, inasmuch as it was not made within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award. It is contended that, as a Mukhtear appeared at some stage of the proceedings, it must be taken that the appellant was represented before the Collector at the time when the Collector made his award.. It appears, however, that some time before the date of the award, the Collector passed an order that the appellant should go to the Civil Court; and it does not appear that the Mukhtear took any further part in the proceedings before the Collector. That being so, the appellant was not present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award. The refe...
Kali Charan Basak Vs. Amar Chand Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.44
John Woodroffe, J.1. The learned Pleader who appears for the respondent states that he is unable to support Mr. Justice Roe's judgment on the question of onus as stated by him. The onus was clearly on the defendant to prove that the bond which he signed contained a recital which was not in accordance with the facts, for that bond states: 'I have borrowed Rs. 50 (Rupees fifty) from your tahabil.' Both the plaintiff and the defendant in this case gave evidence, and the District Judge rightly held as to the party upon whom the onus of proof lay. Going further, he does not accept the defendant's ease, and accordingly he decreed the suit. The decision in the Allahabad case to which we have been referred Makund v. Bahori Lal (1)] deals with a different set of circumstances, for there evidence who given only on behalf of the plaintiff, and the defendant's evidence was not taken. The High Court there reversed the decision, because the effect of the judgment under appeal was to decree a suit in...
Jamini Mohan Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Narendra Mohan Chakrabarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.71
1. The District Judge held that the chitta (Exhibit 1) was inadmissible, though it is stated to have been admitted without objection in the first Court. It has, however, been held to be admissible by this Court in the judgment under appeal, and in so holding, we think, the learned Judge was right. It follows, therefore, that when the District Judge gave his judgment he came to his conclusions without Considersing evidence which was legally admissible. As we are not Judges of fact, the case should have under those circumstances been remitted to the District Judge for re-Consideration. We must do that now, and remand the case to the District Judge for re-hearing to consider the case taking into account this document, the chitta, and in so re-hearing the case the learned Judge will determine whether the issue of adverse possession arises upon the pleadings, and if so, whether it is sustained in law and fact.2. The appellant is entitled to the costs of the appeal before us. As regards the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »