Kolkata Court March 1917 Judgments
Binode Lal Chakraburtti and ors. Vs. Preo Nath Chakraburtti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.173
1. In our opinion, there can be no room for controversy that the view-taken by Mr. Justice Walmsley is amply supported by the authorities. The plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of money in the alternative from two sets of defendants. He claimed arrears of rent from the tenant-defendants, and, alleged, at the same time, that if the entire rent had already been realised from them by his co-sharers, he was entitled to a decree as against the latter. This form of action is well known Sham Singh v. Kishun Sahai 6 C.L.J. 190; Aiyathurai Ravuthan v. Santha Meera Ravuthan 31 M. 252 : 18 M.L.J. 238; Yerukola v. Mudiya kamudu 4 Ind. Cas. 34 : 19 M.L.J. 399 : 5 M.L.T. 282 : 6 M.L.T. 139. The Court of first instance found that the entire rent had been collected on the 4th November 1907 by the fourth defendant who was apparently the managing member of the family composed of the plaintiff and his co-sharers. The trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit against the tenant defendants and m...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Mukerjee Vs. Shib Prosad Mukerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.370
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the learned District Judge of the 24-Pergannas, dated the 18th September 1912, modifying a decision of the Munsif at Sealdah. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of a certain plot of land that had been awarded to him in a certain partition suit. The defence set up by the contesting defendant, namely, the tenant, was that he had obtained a permanent lease of the property from the owners prior to the partition. The learned Judge in the Court of Appeal below has found these facts and they are not seriously controverted:---That, on the 13th November 1894, the contesting defendant took a lease from the Goswami defendants who were then the co-sharers of the property. The person representing an one-fifth interest in the property was a Hindu widow named Tripura Sundari, to the estate of whose husband the present plaintiff succeeded on the death of Tripura. The learned Judge has found that that lease...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Nath Ghose and ors. Vs. Ashutosh Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.525
1. This appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings. The facts are briefly these: The respondent is or rather was the owner of a certain putni taluk called Mouza Khasmara. The appellants hold a jama of some 5 bighas and odd cottahs at an annual rental of Rs. 27-2-8 within the taluk under the respondent. Their contention is that they have a non-transferable occupancy right in these five bighas. The taluk belonging to the respondent was sold in November 1909 at the instance of the zemindar under Regulation VIII of 1819.2. On the 14th April 1910 the respondent who was the putnidar brought a suit for rent of the 5 bighas odd, against the present appellant and obtained a decree in January 1911. In February 1911 the sale of the respondent's putni taluk was set aside.3. On the 20th January 1914 the respondent applied for the execution of the rent decree which he had obtained for the 5 bighas odd of land in January 1911 against, the present appellant. The proceedings appear to have drag...
Tag this Judgment!Sarpat Singh and anr. Vs. Rai Budh Singh Dudheria Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.240
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rulecalling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be set aside. The order complained of was passed on an application which is stated in the order-sheet to be an application for review of judgment. As a master of fact, it was not such. It was a renewal of an application that had been dismissed in May 1916. The application was made for a direction upon the guardian of the property of a minor to make certain payments that had been directed to be made by the District Judge, the amount being Rs. 300 per mensem, for the minor's maintenance. The question turned upon the consideration of a condition that the District Judge had imposed by an order dated the 8th May 1912, the District Judge having by that order directed that no payment should be made to the guardian of the person of the minor, that is, the mother, until she went with the infant to live in a house provided for the residence of the infant. Then on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Basudeb Narayan Sinha Vs. Srimati Kadambini Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.77
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The plaintiff opposite party brought a suit to enforce a mortgage. A question was raised as to whether the plaintiff could be successful and the plaintiff applied to the learned Judge for permission to withdraw from . the suit with liberty to bring another suit on the same cause of action which the learned Judge granted. The learned Judge under the terms of the rule clearly had power to grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit at any stage of the proceeding. The mere fact that the learned Judge granted that leave on a ground that may or may not appear to us to be sufficient is no ground for interfering under the terms of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. This is not a case of want of jurisdiction nor did the learned Judge act with material irregularity. The Rule is discharged with costs--one gold mohur.Smit...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria Vs. Krishna Behari Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.561
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Newbould, J., whereby he affirmed the judgment of the first Appellate Court.2. The plaintiff's claim was for Rs. 3,330 as arrears of rent. The defendants pleaded that the rent was Rs. 3,315 per annum and that the further sum of Rs. 15 claimed by the plaintiff was in the nature of an abwab and was not recoverable.3. It appears that in 1883 a kabuliyat was executed by Ram Sharan Biswas, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, in favour of one Roy Dhanapat Singh Bahadur, who subsequently sold the mahal to the plaintiff.4. In this kabuliyat the annual rental is stated to be Rs. 3,315-4-0, but it was further provided by the document that the defendants' predecessor should pay in the month of Bhadra every year the sum of Rs. 15 in respect of a Thakur. The words of the clause, according to a translation which was agreed upon by the learned Vakils who argued the case, were as follows.5. 'Besides this I shall continue to p...
Tag this Judgment!Premsuk Das Assaram Vs. Udairam Gungabux
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.233
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment of Fletcher, J., whereby he directed that judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs for Rs. 4,503 with interest and costs, and that the plaintiffs were to be at liberty to prove their claim in respect of the balance of the claim in suit in the ordinary way.2. This judgment was given upon a motion made by the plaintiff firm under Order XII, Rule 6.3. The suit was for Rs. 6,813-1-0, and, if necessary, for an account of the dealings and transactions between the parties and for an order on the defendant firm to pay to the plaintiff firm what on the inking of such accounts might be found due by the defendant firm to the plaintiff firm.4. It was alleged in the statement of claim that the plaintiff firm had been acting as commission agents in Calcutta for the defendants on terms set out therein. That on the last adjustment of accounts, viz., on 25th March 1915, a sum of Rs. 9,329-5-6 was found to be due fro...
Tag this Judgment!Srimaty Tarangini Dei Wife of Abinash Chandra Bera Vs. Baikuntha Nath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.1
John Woodroffe, J.1. The only question that arises from the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is whether the petitioner was or was not a benamidar. It must be shown that she was either a party to the suit or a representative of the party to the suit. Doubtless she was not a party to the suit, for that party was one Shyam Maiti. She was not also, according to the finding of the lower Appellate Court, a representative of Shyam Maiti who himself was a party to the proceeding. Admitting for the sake of argument that a purchaser from a judgment-debtor is his representative, it was found as a fact that the alleged purchase on the part of the petitioner was not bona fide but a collusive transaction, which is equivalent to saying that there was no conveyance and that nothing passed to the petitioner. That being so, the Judge was right in holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain an application under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure.2. The appeal is accordingly dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Dooly Chand Vs. Maharaja Sir Rameswar Singh Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.623
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of the second Court at Alipore, dated the 24th February 1917. The appeal arises under the following circumstances. By an indenture of mortgage made in the month of July 1911 between the judgment-debtor of the one part and the decree-holder of the other part, the judgment-debtor mortgaged to the decree-holder a certain Jute Press together with the machineries and fixtures to secure a sum of 21/2 lakhs of rupees with interest. In the said indenture was contained a covenant by the mortgagor that he would at all times during the continuance of the security insure and keep insured to the full value thereof and for not less than Rs. 3,30,000 the mortgaged premises from loss or damage by fire in the name of the mortgagor in some office to be approved of by the mortgagee and that he would assign, endorse and deliver to the mortgagee the policy for such insurance and the receipt for every suc...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Promoda Dasi Vs. Kedar Nath Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.732
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Khulna, dated the 2nd May 1914, modifying the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of a plot of laid. The facts found by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court are wholly in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, except as regards one particular matter. One Krishna Kishore Ghose died leaving four sons and a widow. He left a Will appointing his widow, the defendant No. 4 in this case, as his executrix. The defend-ants Nos. 1 and 2 held the disputed land as tenants under the estate of Krishna Kishore Ghose. The defendant No. 4 as executrix brought a suit to recover the rent in arrear against the present defendants Nos. 1 and .2 and obtained a decree Prior to the decree, one of the sons of Krishna Kishore Ghose by name Jatindra died and the defendant No. 4 succeeded to his share. After the decree, had been obtained the property...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »