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.
Jharu Charan Maity Vs. Sridam Chandra Mahapatra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.655
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for arrears for rent. The plaintiff-appellant is the usufructuary mortgagee from the second defendant, and is, under the terms of the mortgage contract dated the 5th July 1910, entitled to possession. The first defendant is the actual cultivator who holds under the second defendant under a lease dated the 2nd May 1904. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover from the first defendant arrears of rent which had accrued due after the date of the mortgage. The first defendant pleaded that he had paid the rent to his landlord, the mortgagor second defendant. The Court of First Instance decreed the suit. The District Judge has reversed that decision and dismissed the suit; his decree has been affirmed on second appeal to this Court. It is plain that in view of the provisions of Section 72 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed. Under Sub-clause (1) of th...
Badu Mia Vs. Srimati Badrannessa Alias Behari Banoo, Minor, by Her Fat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.803
1. We are of opinion that the decree made by Mr. Justice Newbould must be affirmed. We have been invited to hold that the right conferred on the wife by the dower-deed was not properly exercised, and considerable time elapsed between her knowledge of the second marriage of her husband and the institution of this suit. This point, however, was not taken in the Court of First Instance and there has consequently been no determination of two material questions of fact, viz., first, whether the dower-deed was an anti-nuptial or a post-nuptial contract ; and secondly, when did the wife become aware of the second marriage of her husband. The sole question in controversy throughout has been whether valid authority to divorce was conferred upon the wife and whether she has exercised that authority in accordance with law. Upon that point, there can be no doubt that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge and confirmed by Mr. Justice Newbould is correct. The decision of this Court in the case of ...
Chandi Charan Saha and on His Death His Heir Behari Lal Saha Vs. Jnane ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.250
1. This appeal is directed against an order of Mr. Justice Walmsley, whereby he has set aside the decision of the District Judge and directed the appeal to be re-heard. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of the appeal on the ground that the decision is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. To determine the validity of the preliminary objection it is necessary to state briefly the nature of the suit and the scope of the orders made at various stages thereof.2. The plaintiff sued the defendant for accounts and put his case in the alternative. He alleged in the first place that the defendant was his servant employed in two wine shops, and was consequently liable to render accounts. He asserted in the second place that if the defendant was not a servant, he was a partner and was in that character liable to render accounts. The Court of First Instance came to the conclusion that the defendant was a partner and made a decree for dissoluti...
Saradendu Mukerjee, Sole Executor to the Estate of His Late Father Har ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.870
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of the Twenty-four Pergannas, dated the 5th February 1914, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The appeal before the learned Additional District Judge involved only one question on the merits, namely, as to the manner in which the Judge in the primary Court had dealt with the costs of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Judge in the primary Court, considering all the circumstances, in the exercise of his discretion made a partial award to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 of their costs in the suit. As to the remainder of their costs, he made no order and left them to bear them themselves. Against that decision, an appeal was preferred to the learned Additional District Judge, who reversed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge and awarded to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the whole of their costs. The present appeal is preferred against that decision. The facts a...
Basiruddi Chowdhuri Vs. Afsarannessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.833
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for arrears of rent. The terms of the contract of tenancy are embodied in a document dated the 10th February 1892, and called a barga kabuliyat; the value of the crops mentioned therein is stated to be Rs. 25 at the commencement of the instrument. The tenant undertook to cultivate the land and raise crops thereon, and covenanted as follows : 'The crops that will be raised at any time on the said land shall be taken to your house, and after making over to you to your entire satisfaction half share thereof, as proprietor's share, I shall take the remaining half share. I shall cultivate, sow and weed and do other things. If I do not cultivate the amount of crops in your share will be determined by a reference to the crops raised on neighboring fields. I shall deliver to you the crops. If I neglect to deliver the said crops, I shall pay you Rs. 25 per annum on account of the value o...
G.H. Wittenbaker Vs. J.C. Galstaun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.11
Greaves, J.1. The plaintiff in this case claims from the defendants, who are two of the managers of the Armenian College, a sum of Rs. 1,490 by way, of damages under the circumstances to which I shall presently refer. On the 28th February 1912, the plaintiff was appointed as Mathematical and English Master at the Armenian College for a period of three years from the 1st of March 1912, at a salary of Rs. 159 a month with board and lodging. The agreement, which is contained in a resolution signed by three of the governors or managers of the College on the 5th of March 1912, contains one or two other matters to which I need not refer and it concludes with these words: 'The security to be paid him (that is, a certain sum to be retained from his salary) when the managers dispense with his services which they are entitled to do for insubordination, insobriety, neglect of duties, etc., on one month's notice.' In pursuance, of, that agreement, the plaintiff continued as a teacher at the Armeni...
Raj Chandra Mandal and ors. Vs. Raghunath Dafadar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.245
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of the 24 Pergunnahs, dated the 6th January 1914, modifying the decision of the Additional Munsif of Basirhat. The plaintiffs brought the suit for possession of two plots of land, each measuring about 7 cottas. One of these two plots, it is alleged, has been acquired by purchase in execution of a mortgage decree and the other plot has been acquired by a private sale from the defendant No. 5. The only question in this case is: 'Had the defendant No. 5 a title to the property that could be passed to the plaintiffs? ' The Primary Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit in full. The learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court has reversed the decision of the Primary Court on appeal with regard to the plot acquired by private purchase by the plaintiffs from the defendant No. 5. The case has been argued With great ability by Mr. Mazumdar on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants; but I am not satisfied that, on ...
Sheikh Kamaarddi Vs. Srimati Monmohini Dasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.373
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for rent. Under the contract of tenancy, dated the 8th September 1898, the defendant undertook to deliver to his landlord 35 powas of paddy as rent for each year. There was a further provision that, on default, the landlord would be entitled to realise from the tenant Rs. 20 as price of the paddy with damages and costs, The landlord instituted this suit on the allegation that the paddy due for the years 1317 and 1318 had not been delivered and sought a decree for recovery of Rs. 40 with damages and costs. The defendant pleaded that the contract contravened the provisions of Section 48 (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and was consequently not enforceable in law. This contention was accepted by the Court of first instance. Upon appeal a contrary view was taken by the Subordinate Judge, and the decision of the lower Appellate Court has been confirmed by Mr. Justice Newbould.2. Section...
Ramendra Nath Ray Vs. Brojendra Nath Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.944
John Woodroffe, J.1. This suit is brought against four sets of defendants and the point in issue is, whether there has been misjoinder of parties and causes of action. In the judgment under appeal Chitty, J., has held that the plaintiff who claims such right cannot be allowed to proceed in one suit against the defendants, and adjourning the hearing, gave the plaintiff a fortnight to elect against which of the defendants he would proceed. Though the learned Judge does not expressly say so, it is quite clear on the judgment and proceedings that if the plaintiff does not elect and persists in his claim to sue all defendants, his suit will be dismissed. The position is substantially the same as if the Court had dismissed the action unless the plaintiff elected under the liberty given to him. It has been objected that no appeal lies. The first question is whether this is a judgment. It seems to me that it is, for it is an adjudication that the suit cannot lie as framed and cannot proceed as...
Umesh Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Surendra Chandra Dutta Alias Gedu Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1917
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.8
1. The question in controversy in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs landlords are entitled to realise rent at the rate of. Rs. 2614-0, as they assert, or at the rate of Rs. 22-14-0, as the tenant defendant alleges. The determination of this question turns upon the construction of a Kabuliyat executed by the predecessor of the defendant on the 18th September 1883. The Kabuliyat shows that there was a survey in 1879 and a Jamanbandi was prepared in the year following. The father of the defendant came into occupation of the land and 'agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 22-44 0 according to the prevailing rates after deduction of the remissions mentioned. The Kabuliyat further recited that rent had been paid on promise that the tenant would execute a Kabuliyat afterwards and that as the document had been demanded by the landlords he executed the Kabuliyat, agreeing to pay the said Jama of; Rs. 22-140 per instalments mentioned in the schedule. If attention be confined to the body of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »