Kolkata Court April 1917 Judgments
Baidya Nath Bose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.601
1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted under Part II, rule 3, read with rule 19 of the rules framed by the Governor-in-Council under Section 11 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, VIII of 1914, for the purpose of regulating the use of motor vehicles in Calcutta.2. The petitioner is the owner of Taxi cab No. B. E. 1, and it has been found that on the night of the 14th September last the licensed driver placed by the petitioner in charge of his car drove so negligently as to overturn the car into a roadside drain and cause injury to the passengers.3. It is not disputed that the driver has thereby contravened rule 19, and the question is whether, by virtue of rule 3, the owner against whom, on the disappearance of the driver, proceedings have been taken, is liable for the acts and conduct of his servant.4. Rule 3, in so far as applicable to the present case, runs as follows.No person shall...permit to be used any motor vehicle...which is so driven or used as to contravene any of ...
Tag this Judgment!Annada Charan Datta Vs. Mohim Chandra Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.673
1. Two questions have been raised in this case: the first is whether there was a forfeiture of the defendant's tenancy by reason of certain statements made by him in a previous suit, and, secondly, whether there can be a forfeiture of a permanent tenure on the ground of disclaimer of the landlord's title.2. Taking the second question first, we do not see any reason why a permanent tenure should not be determined by forfeiture. Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act lays down that a lease of immoveable property determines in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; and the lessor does some act showing his intention to determine the lease.3. The question was raised in the case of Kally Dass Ahiri v. Monmohini Dassee 24 C. 440: 1 C. W. N. 321: 12 Ind. Dec. (N. S.) 961. and it was held that a lease notwithstanding that it is permanent is liable to forfeiture under the provisions of the Transfer of Properly...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Sudan Mullick and ors. Vs. Jamirudd1n Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.767
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit for enhancement of rent of a holding under Section MO of the Bengal Tenancy Act and also for additional rent on account of additional area in the holding.2. The defendant had a holding of 8 bighas and 5 cottas at a rent of Rs. 6-10 16 gimlets. It has, however, been found that he is in possession of 2 bighas odd in excess of the area which he had been holding before. The Court of Appeal below gave a decree for additional rent for the excess area at the prevailing rate of rent, but refused to allow any enhancement with respect to the land included in the original holding namely, 8 bighas 5. cottas on the ground that the defendant had held at the same rent for a period of twenty years before the institution of the suit, and that therefore, the rent could not be enhanced.3. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court and it is contended before us that as there has been an alteration in the area of the holding held by the defendant the presumption under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Chutterput Singh Vs. Sadasook Kotary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.623
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an appeal from an order on an application made by a judgment-debtor that an earlier order made by this Court, dated 9th May 1916, for his arrest may be vacated, cancelled and set aside' en the ground that on the date on which the writ of arrest was asked for, the decree was barred by limitation.2. On the 3rd September 1896 a decree was made (ex parte) in the High Court for Rs. 17,626-10-4. On the 3rd May 1901, copy of the decree was sent to the District Judge of Murshidabad for execution on the 30th July 1902, a sum of Rs. 322 8-3 was realized. Then some eleven years later on the 2rith July 1913, an application was made for execution' by attachment of the immoveable property No 147, Cotton Street, Calcutta, belonging to the' judgment-debtor. The Master ordered notice1 under Order XXI, rule 22, to issue. On the 23rd September 1913, notice was served upon the judgment-debtor. On the 18th November 1913, the judgment-debtor entered appearance through Babu Haripada D...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjo Behari Bardhan Vs. Gosto Behari Bardhan of Ramkrishnapur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.590
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside a decree of dismissal made by the Judge of a Court of Small Causes in a suit for recovery of money due under an award. The petitioner and the opposite party are brothers. On the 24th September 1912, the petitioner instituted a suit against his brother for contribution, in respect of sums alleged to have been paid as municipal rates on account of joint properties. During the pendency of this suit, the parties agreed to refer the matters in dispute to arbitrators. On the 14th March 1913 they filed their submission in Court, whereby three men were nominated arbitrators to settle all disputes between them as regards their joint properties and to effect a partition thereof. On the1 30th June 1913 the arbitrators made an elaborate award, which contained a scheme for division of the joint properties, and gave directions for payment of sums of money by one of the parties to the other. On the 14th July 1913 the Court proceeded to make a decree en the ...
Tag this Judgment!Norendra, Nath Kumar and anr. Vs. Atul Chandra Bandopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.837
1. This Rule raises the question, whether the Trial Court refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law, when it dismissed the claim on the ground that the suit was not properly constituted and could not be entertained. The plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants are joint shebaits of the property dedicated to an idol Damodar Jeo Thakur. The principal defendants are the tenants in occupation of the land. The plaintiffs instituted this suit under Section 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act for recovery of one-fourth share of the rent payable by the tenant defendants, on the allegation that they were interested to the extent of one-fourth in the dedicated property while the pro forma defendants were interested to the extent of three-fourths. The Court of first instance held that the suit as framed was not maintainable, and that view has been affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge observes that the shebaits are not co-sharers but co-worshippers, and any fam...
Tag this Judgment!Dharanidhar Aditya and ors. Vs. Hemanga Chandra Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.956
1. We are invited in this Rule to consider the propriety of an order whereby the Court below has refused to revise a suit for arrears of rent and to try it in accordance with law. The suit was decreed ex parte on the 15th December 1914. The defendant in the suit was an infant represented by his mother as guardian ad litem. After the ex parte decree had been made, a suit was instituted on behalf of the infant by another guardian to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the infant was not properly represented and that the decree in fact had been obtained by fraud. This suit was decreed on the 30th June 1916 and the ex parte decree was set aside. On the 11th September 1916, the plaintiff applied to the Court to revive the original suit and to try it in accordance with law. The Court refused the application on the 20th November 1916. In support of this order, reliance has been placed upon the decision in Kshetra Mohan v. Man Gobinda Pal 6 Ind. Cas. 13 : 14 C. W. N. 558. It is no...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Nath Tagore and ors. Vs. J. Hodding and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.604
1. This Role is directed against an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Patuakhali under the provisions of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which he has attached a certain plot of land which is described as a partially excavated tank. The dispute which gave rise to the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, was one between the owners of a mouzah called Algi towards the west and the owners of the neighbouring mouzah called Chandkati on the east. Between these two mouzahs there runs a khal now in a great measure silted up. In the map prepared in the course of the Record of Rights in connection with these two mouzahs that khal has been marked as plot No. 107. Of the partially excavated tank, part of it appears falls in plot marked No. 68, which it is not disputed is within the boundary of Mouzah Algi, and another large portion is within the khal marked No. 107. Whether the tank does or does not extend also to some small extent on to three plots ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Bandopadhya Vs. Harish Chandra Roy and ors. and Satish C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.605
1. The only question in this case is one of limitation. It appears that the defendants were the owners of the property in dispute, an 8-anna share in a sikmi taluq. That property was sold for arrears of rent at the instance of the landlord Radhika Mohan Roy on 9th May 1899 and purchased by the decree-holder himself. The sale was confirmed on 20th June 1899. The sale certificate was issued on 6th May 1904. Symbolical possession was given under Section 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 on 23rd July 1904. The present plaintiff bought the property from the representative of the decree-holder on 8th June 1906, and filed the present suit to recover possession on 9th March 1914. If the time be taken to have run from the date of the confirmation of the sale on 20th June 1899 the suit would obviously be out of time. If, on the other hand, it is taken to run from the date of the delivery of possession to the purchaser, i.e., 23rd July 1904, the suit is not barred.2. The Code of 1882 is ...
Tag this Judgment!Denibeswar Sarma Bara Thakur Vs. Bethoram Saikia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.648
1. In this case we are of opinion that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is not in accordance with law. In stating the point for determination the learned District Judge remarked that it was whether the suit had been rightly decreed and gave his opinion that the answer to this was in the affirmative. He then deals with the question of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which does not arise in the way in which he has dealt with it. The issues raised in the first Court were quite explicit and showed what the real points at issue between the parties were. Section 116 of the Evidence Act would have no application to the point whether the plaintiff has made out his title to redeem this land by virtue of his purchase from Brojonath. The other points have not been touched by the learned District Judge, first, whether the mortgage was valid and, if not, what would be the rights of the parties; secondly, whether Kaliprosad was a lunatic and Brojonath could act as his guardi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »