Kolkata Court March 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.
Bharat Chandra Nath and anr. Vs. YasIn Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.586
Fletcher, J.1. I agree in the result of the judgment about to be delivered by Mr. Justice Richardson.Richardson, J.2. The appellant is a decree-holder and the respondent is his judgment-debtor. The appellant having applied for the execution of his decree by the attachment and sale of the respondent's holding, the latter preferred an objection on the ground that the holding was a raiyati holding, not transferable without the consent of the landlord. The petition of objection was filed on the 20th February 1914. Notice of it was duly given to the decree-holder and the matter was set down for hearing. There were several adjournments, the last being to the 18th July 1914. On that date the petitioner did not appear and the petition was dismissed for default.2. The petitioner then applied to have the order of dismissal set aside. The application purported to be made under Rule 9 of Order IX. On the 24th October 1914 the learned Subordinate Judge held that the order having been made in the co...
Harshankar Ojha and ors. Vs. Gouri Sankar Missir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.795
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. (March, 15th 1917.)--This was a suit brought by the plaintiff asking that it might be adjudicated that the disputed lands formed part of the guzasta lands of the plaintiff, that after the death of the plaintiff's mother and after the expiry of the term of the pattah granted by her the plaintiff was entitled to possession, and also asking for a declaration that the proceedings taken at the time of revision of the Settlement were not binding on the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was no party to the same and that the said proceedings were ultra vires and illegal.2. The plaintiff claimed to hold the lands as an occupancy-raiyat, the land consisting of some 25 bighas. The plaintiff's mother appears to have given a tease of the land for seven years and the mother died before the expiry of the lease. The lease was granted to the first defendant, whose name was Ram Naresh Ojha. The plaintiff alleged that finding Ram Naresh Ojha in possession on her mother's death she ...
Sarada Kripalala Vs. Akhil Chandra Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.530
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in an action in ejectment. The suit was decreed in part in the Court of first instance. On appeal the Subordinate Judge decreed the claim in full and that decree has been affirmed in second appeal to this Court, The rights of the parties are regulated by a contract of tenancy executed on the 23rd April 1649 by Madan Mohan Ghose in favour of Abdul in respect of the first plot of land now in dispute. The lease, which is called taluka patta, recites that the tenant had executed a kabuliyat in favour of the grantor and that the taluka patta was granted on a rent of Re. 1 from year to year. Then follows an important covenant in these terms: 'You shall erect houses upon the land and live there. If I have a personal necessity, you shall relinquish the land, and you will not be entitled to make any objection.' The plaintiff is the successor-in-interest of the original grantor; the first defendant...
Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi Bahadur Vs. Rangalal Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.728
John Woodroffe, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain chowkidari chakran lands. The suit was filed on the 3rd March 1911. The plaint set out the resumed lands in a schedule containing 9 plots of land of an area of 26 bighas said to be of the value of Rs. 305. On the 16th August 1911 an application was made for what was called an amendment of this plaint and was granted on the 29th August 1931. The result of this order was that the suit became one for 59 plots in lieu of 9 plots of an area of 69 bighas instead of 26 bighas and for lands of the value of Rs. 705 instead of Rs. 305. The question, therefore, which first arises is whether this so-called amended plaint includes or pot the lands set out in the schedule of the unamended plaint. If it does so, what are those lands? If there are such lands the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree in respect of the same. If there are no such lands then the case must be dealt with as stated later on in this judgment. I ...
Sakhayat Ali Munshi and ors. Vs. Alhadi Hazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.332
1. In this Rule the District Magistrate of Dacca has been called upon to show cause why an order made under the provisions of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in favour of the first party in a proceeding taken under the said section should not be set aside practically on the ground that the Trying Magistrate had not given the petitioners, or indeed either party, any opportunity of adducing oral evidence in support of the possession which they claimed. That this ground is well founded is apparent 'from the order sheet of the case and also from the ill-advised explanation which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has submitted. He says: 'I have learnt from painful experience that evidence as to possession of land is one of the most fruitful sources of perjury. I did my best to avoid examining witnesses intentionally, as I knew that I should not be able to rely on the statements of either party's supporters.' But it should be obvious to any Judicial Officer that proceedings in Court are no...
Nitai Chandra Naskar and anr. Vs. Srimati Champaklata Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1917
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.104
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for recovery of possession of land. The rival claimants to the property, which admittedly belonged at one time to Dasarath Sardar, were a purchaser from the heir of Dasarath and a purchaser from Dasarath himself. The question in controversy, consequently, is, whether the property formed part of the estate of Dasarath at the time of his death or had vested in the defendant by the conveyance executed by Dasarath on the 16th July 1909. This conveyance was impeached on two grounds: first, that it was obtained by undue influence, and, secondly, that no consideration was paid for it. The plea that it was obtained by undue influence has been negatived and no question of law obviously arises on that part of the case. It has also been found that consideration was not actually paid at the time of the transfer, though the vendor did intend that title should transfer from himself to the pur...
ishan Chandra Dhupi Vs. Nishi Chandra Dhupi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.378
1. It is an appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, from a judgment of Mr. Justice Chapman in an action in ejectment. The plaintiff instituted this suit on the allegation that he had acquired a raiyati-interest in the land before 1893, and that on the 2nd May of that year, the first defendant became an under-raiyat under him on condition that he would have permanent and heritable rights but would not be entitled to sell, mortgage or exchange the land and that if in contravention of the agreement, he transferred the property, the plaintiff would be entitled to re-enter. In 1908, the first defendant sold his right as an under-raiyat to the second defendant. Thereupon the plaintiff commenced this action on the 8th September 1908 to eject both the defendants; he also prayed that the third defendant who was in occupation as a trespasser might be ejected. The suit was defended by the third defendant, who pleaded that the land did not belong to the plaintiff and that he himself held it...
Priya Sankar Chowdhuri, Minor, by His Mother Kulakamini Chowdhurani Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.19
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. I think that this appeal ought to be dismissed: and inasmuch as the circumstances are rather peculiar I think it right to make a few observations.2. The first point which was raised by the learned Vakil was with regard to Estoppel, but he did not argue it very strenuously and did not read the judgment of the learned Judge upon that point: and, the fact was, I think, brought home to him, during the course of the argument by the observations which fell from my learned brother and myself, that there was no case of estoppel. I need not say anything upon that point except that I agree with the judgment of the learned Judge.3. The real point which has been argued before us is that this was matter of res judicata.4. The action in this case was brought by the plaintiffs to obtain possession of the land and upon this question of res judicata, it appears that in a previous suit in which the present defendant was the plaintiff and the present plaintiffs and one Madan Ma...
Amirulla Pramanik and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1917
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.649
1. No one appears to oppose this Rule, and we are of opinion that it mast be made absolute on the grounds on which it was issued. It appears that on the 28th September last there were 42 witnesses present on behalf of the person against whom the proceedings were taken. Of the forty-two 20 were examined and this having the result that the defence witnesses had then equalled in number the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the remaining 22 witnesses the trying Magistrate declined to examine. It is fairly obvious that witnesses are not to be counted by heads in this manner, and that it is not open to the trying Magistrate to put such an arbitrary limit on the witnesses whose evidence the defence desires to adduce. There was further a petition praying that one hundred more witnesses should be summoned and thereafter examined on behalf of the defence. But it is not suggested here that the Magistrate was wrong in refusing to accede to an application of that sort made at so late...
Gopal Chandra Mukhopadhya and ors. Vs. Probhat Chandra Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.577
1. We are not disposed to accept the argument whereby a restricted scope is attributed by the appellant to Section 4 of the Partition Act of 1893. The interpretation he seeks to put upop the section is that it has no application when the person, who claims partition of a dwelling-house, has also obtained a transfer of a share of other property. This limited construction was negatived in the case of Khirode Chandra v. Saroda Prosad 7 Ind. Cas. 436 : 12 C.L.J. 525. In our opinion the effect of Section 4 is to exclude the dwelling-house from the partition suit if one or other member of the family is willing to pay the price thereof and purchase it as provided in that section. This was the contingency which happened in this case. It was faintly argued, as a last resort, that the application of Section 4 was excluded by reason of the rent sale. Mr. Justice Walmsley has conclusively shown that the rent sale did not, for any practical purpose, affect the mutual rights and obligations of the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »