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.
Kumar Prasanna Deb Raikat, Late a Minor, by His Guardian Satis Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.553
1. Mr. Justice Newbould has held that the Variation which has been proved is so small that it does not rebut the presumption arising under Section 50 of the Bangui Tenancy Act. The cases referred to deal with those in which there has bean an unexplained variation. In the present case it has been proved that there has been variation of rent; and there is no suggestion or evidence in the case to show that such variation was due to increase of area or any other cause than that of enhancement of rent. This ground, therefore, fails.2. The other ground taken is that the learned District Judge was wrong in relying upon the evidence afforded by the jama wasilbaki papers. It is not and cannot be disputed that those papers are relevant evidence in the ease. What has been contended is that the evidence which has been given in support of these documents is not sufficient to make them admissible for the purposes for which they have been used. The simple answer to this argument is that these documen...
Krishna Kumar De Vs. Kalinath Guha Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.421
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the learned District Judge of Noakhali, dated the 18th June 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Lakhipore. The plaintiff brought his suit to recover the price of goods sold and delivered to the defendants. The plaintiff is a dealer in oil, salt and other commodities and he supplied the defendants, who were members of a joint Hindu family, with these commodities for the use of their household. The plaintiff set up an adjustment of account in the plaint, but, notwithstanding that adjustment, it is quite clear from the plaint that the suit was brought to recover the price of goods sold and delivered. The Munsif found that the case was a true one but, as the suit was based upon an adjusted account, it must fail because the plaintiff had failed to prove the adjustment of the account. That view, in substance, was confirmed by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. In that view I am unable to agree. It is ...
Sadak Ali and anr. Vs. Keramat Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.273
1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 14th January 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The point that has been argued in this appeal is with reference to an additional ground of appeal (No. 6), which was added after the admission of the appeal under Order XLI, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, and that ground of appeal is with reference to this, whether the annulment of an encumbrance under Act XI of 1359 must be made by a judicial process. That is the ground set up in the appeal and the matter has come up for consideration. There are many decisions of this Court that are binding on us to the contrary. Perhaps it will be sufficient if we refer to the decisions in Darsan Singh v. Bhawani Koer 19 Ind. Cas. 971 ; 17 C.W.N. 984, where it was definitely laid down that the purchaser at a revenue sale many elect to annul an under-tenure not only by the institution of a s...
Badial Alam Vs. Abdul Hakim and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.609
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 10th May 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Patiya. The suit was brought to recover possession of a plot of land which the plaintiffs alleged they had purchased from a purchaser at a sale in execution of a mortgage-decree. The defendant No. 2 set up a claim by a purchase from a purchaser from the mortgagor prior to the date of the mortgage. That claim has been found to be false. This defendant has, however, been found to be in possession of 10 gundas of land and he has been given a decree for possession of that share. The only point raised in this appeal is that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. Clearly it is not barred by limitation if Article 138 of the present Limitation Act applies. It is said, however, that the former Limitation Act applies because the plaintiffs have got a vested right under the provisions of the old Code. That is clearly not so. The Privy Council...
Rajani Kanta Sarkar Vs. the Midnapur Zamindary Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.701
John Woodroffe, J.1. The plaintiff is a purchaser of a holding from a tenant of the Midnapur Zemindari Company. This Company refused to register the plaintiff, as he was unwilling to pay an enhanced jama and selami which were demanded. On three occasions suits for rent were brought by the Company against the original tenant and the property was sold. The plaintiff then applied under Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code and deposited the rent sued for. No objection was taken by the Company, who took the money which the plaintiff had deposited in Court. Now, having done this the question is this, can the Midnapur Zemindari Company say that the plaintiff has no title when they have taken the money which was deposited under the provisions of Section 310A? It seems to me clear that they cannot do so. Section 310 A applies to applications by persons whose immoveable property has been sold under the provisions of (he chapter in which it appears. It was open to the Midnapur Zemindari Compa...
Amrita Lal Bose and ors. Vs. the Chairman of the Corporation of Calcut ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.322
1. In this case a Rule was issued at the instance of the three petitioners Amritalal Bose, Hari Prasad Bose and Dasu Charan Neogi, calling on the Municipal Magistrate and the Chairman of the Corporation to show cause why the sentences imposed on the three petitioners should not be modified and reduced to a sum not exceeding Rs. 20 in all. The grounds were (1) that Bye-law No. 85 does not empower the Magistrate to impose a fine of more than Rs. 20 for a breach thereof, and (2) that the petitioners being joint partners and owners of the Star Theatre were a 'person' within the meaning of Bye-law No. 85 and thus not liable to be fined separately or more than Rs. 20 in all. The learned Judges who heard the Rule having differed in opinion, the case has been laid before me for my opinion under Section 429, Criminal Procedure Code. The three petitioners are the joint proprietors of the Star Theatre in Cornwallis Street. On the night of 3rd September 1916, the performance at that theatre was co...
Kanai Lal Mullick Vs. Ahed Bux Mondul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.562
Beachcroft, J. 1. The petitioner in this Rule is the decree-holder. He had certain property of the judgment-debtor attached. A claim was put in by the present opposite party on the ground that he had purchased from the judgment debtor at a private sale. The Munsif upheld the claim finding that the claimant had proved his purchase, his khas possession, and possession through tenant before the attachment. It is now urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Munsif was wrong in stating that the purchase by the Opposite party was before the attachment. That purchase was on the 27th March 1916. It is urged that the attachment took place on the 22nd March 1916.2. What happened on the 22nd March was that the Court passed an order for attachment. It appears in fact that processes not issued till the 4th April.3. It is further argued on behalf of the decree-holder that the attachment dates from the date that the order is passed by the Court for the issue of attachment. I cannot accede to that p...
In Re: Srimoti Prasanna Moyee Basu and Will of Kritanta Kumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.576
1. The learned Government Pleader, to whom we ordered a notice of this application to be given, has conceded that be cannot oppose this application for issue of Probate.2. The petitioner has filed the valuation required by Section 191 of the Court Fees Act and has also paid the fee requisite under that section. The learned Judge seems to think that because the Collector has not made a motion under Section 19H, Sub-section (4), the probate cannot be granted. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 I says that the grant of Probate should not be delayed by reason of a motion by the Collector under Section 19 H. If the grant is not to be delayed in a case where the Collector has made a motion, we do not see on what principle the grant can be delayed where he has not made a motion.3. The appeal is allowed and Probate will be issued at once.4. Let the order be sent down at once....
Lakhi Charan Saha and ors. Vs. Mokar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.25
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Officiating Additional Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 10th February 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Hathazari. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover Wias possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs purchased a revenue paying estate which was sold for arrears of revenue under the provisions of Act XI of 1859. The question in this case is 'has the contesting defendant a protect-ed interest within the meaning of the proviso to Section 37 of the Act'? The facts found are these : First of all, it has been found that the contesting defendant is a settled raiyat of the village within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Secondly, it has been found that he holds the land in suit which is in the same village as the village of which he is a settled raiyat under the terms of a permanent lease at a fixed rate of rent. Whatever may be the law as regards other classes of raiyats, it is quite...
Khalil Rahman and ors. Vs. KafiluddIn Dalal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1917
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.643
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Noakhali, dated the 26th January 1912, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Hatiya. The plaintiff, who was the purchaser of a raiyati holding from which he had been dispossessed by the defendant, sued to recover possession. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance. On appeal, the learned District Judge has reversed that decision. The suit was instituted as long ago as July 1910 and was valued at the sum of Rs. 25. The dispossession, according to the first Court, took place in April 1908. The amendment of the Bengal Tenancy Act by Article 3 of Schedule III came into force in May 1908. If the first Court's finding remains unaffected, it has been argued that the dispossession took place more than two years before the institution of the suit and the suit was, therefore, barred by Article 3 of Schedule III. In the judgment of the learned District Judge, no finding has been made on what date the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »