Kolkata Court May 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.
Ram Narayan Acharjee Vs. Atul Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.758
1. This Rule was granted to the petitioner Ram Narain Acharjee, who has been ordered to pay Rs. 50 as compensation to the accused in the case which he had brought against him for causing hurt.2. The ground which has been taken that the order for compensation is not included in the order of acquittal cannot, we think, be sustained. It is clear that the complainant was then and there called upon to show causes, and the order against him for compensation was made at the same time by the Sub-Deputy Magistrate. It was recorded, it is true, as a postscript to the order of acquittal, but on, the same piece of paper, and formed part of the same order. On the evidence we do not feel disposed to interfere in revision. It appears from the Magistrate's explanation that in his allegations made before this Court the present petitioner has gone outside the record of the case and stated a number of facts which are not to be found there. These facts appear to have, been introduced mainly for the purpos...
Benodini Debya Vs. Hridoy Nath Ghoshal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.187
1. These two appeals are preferred by the objectors in a Probate application. The respondent in the present appeal who is a daughter's son of a deceased Hindu lady Harasundari Debi propounded a document dated the 21th July 1896 as the last Will of Harasundari. The grant of Probate was opposed by the first appellant Benodini Debya who is the widow of the only son of Hara Sundari and also by the second appellant who is a mortgagee.2. The case put forward was that Hara Sundari made this Will on the 24th July 1896 and died in the year 1896 or 1897, the state of affairs was that she had three daughters and one son Hari Das. Hari Das died on the 28th November 1913 and the Will was not put forward for proof until after his death. The case was clearly one demanding careful investigation having regard amongst other reasons, to the long time which elapsed between the death of the testatrix and the date on which the document was put forward for Probate and also because Hara Sundari was an illiter...
Kanai Lal Ghose Vs. Jatindra Nath Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.711
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made in execution of a decree for costs in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The petitioner instituted this possessory suit against five defendants, one of whom contested the claim and appeared at the trial. The suit was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff with costs and interest. The concluding portion of the judgment ran as if the suit was decreed against all the defendants. The decree, however, was framed as a decree against one defendant only, namely, the fifth defendant who had resisted the claim. The plaintiff decree-holder applied for execution and for recovery of the costs from all the defendants. The Court held that the decree was in essence against the fifth defendant alone and so dismissed the application for execution against the other defendants. The decree-holder thereupon appealed to the District Judge. He held that the decree, interpreted by the judgment must be deemed a decree against all t...
Digambar Das Vs. Bisweswar Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.12
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the learned District Judge of the 24 Perganas, affirming the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Alipur. The plaintiff brought his suit against eleven defendants to recover damages, first of all, for malicious prosecution and secondly, for defamation I use the word defamation advisedly. The case set up in the plaint was that the plaintiff had been prosecuted before the Deputy Magistrate of Diamond Harbour by reason of the defend ants having filed a petition before the learned Magistrate alleging that the plaintiff had been guilty of certain offences. The case, of defamation as argued in this Court and before the learned District Judge is, I am satisfied, a totally different case to that set up in the plaint. It is quite true that in the third paragraph of the plaint the plaintiff states that the defendants are persons living in the same village with the plaintiff and that they in collusion with One another ar...
Gangaram Bhojraj Vs. Dhanman Sirdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.393
1. The application, upon which this Rule was issued, arises out of a suit to recover Rs. 120 on a hand-note executed by the deceased father of the defendant on account of arrears of interest due to the plaintiff firm on previous hand-notes.2. It appears that the defendant put in a petition admitting the claim of the plaintiff and prayed that he might be allowed to pay the money in two instalments.3. The learned Small Cause Court Judge took evidence in the matter and dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no consideration for the hand-note; because it was executed in consideration of interest due on previous hand notes.4. We think that the Court below ought to have decreed the suit when the defendant admitted the claim.5. The defendant has not appeared in this Court.6. The plaintiff agrees to receive the money in two instalments out of the estate of the deceased.7. We accordingly direct that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount claimed, to be paid by the...
Bhabasindhu Haldar and anr. Vs. Kesab Chandra Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.463
1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the learned Judge of the Court below declining to review his judgment should not be set aside. The Judge in the Court below had all the materials before him, He said that the judgment he delivered was all right and he saw no reason to interfere with it and, therefore, declined to grant a review. We cannot interfere with the discretion of a Judge as to whether he should or should not review his judgment. The argument that has been put forward that the application is made not against the order of the learned Judge on the review but against the original order cannot be assented to for one moment. As a matter of fact, the Judge in the original judgment said that the plaintiffs were in serious default. Notwithstanding that they were given time to rectify the default; but they did not do so. The Judge having considered these matters said that he declined to review his judgment. We see no reason to interfere with t...
Janaki Nath Saha Vs. Kailash Chandra Singha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.498
1. The plaintiff-respondent on the 20th November 1908 purchased a nontransferable occupancy holding in execution of a money-decree against one Melon Sheikh, (which was executed after his death against his heirs); but the plaintiff was not recognised as tenant by the landlord. He sued to recover possession of the holding from the defendant who was in possession. The latter set up a purchase in the year 1909 from one of the heirs of Melon, namely, his widow Kulo Bibi who is alleged to have obtained the entire holding from Melon by a deed of gift. He also pleaded that he was accepted as tenant by the landlord. The Court below gave a decree to the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed to this Court.2. Now, an involuntary transfer of an occupancy holding not transferable without the consent of the landlord, is operative as against the raiyat where the raiyat with knowledge of the sale fails or omits, to have the sale set aside. As there was no finding whether Melon's widow had any knowle...
Kedar Nath Dey Roy Vs. Lakhi Kanta Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.1005
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the application for execution of the decree, out of which this appeal arises, is barred by limitation.2. It appears that the appellant obtained a decree for possession of certain property and possession was delivered to him on the 28th January 1911. The judgment-debtor raised objections to the delivery of possession by the Commissioner, and the Court found it necessary to determine the standard of measurement and, for that purpose, to take evidence in the matter. The decree-holder applied for summons upon his witnesses who were examined. The Court, after taking evidence on both sides, directed fresh delivery of possession by another Commissioner and ordered the decree-holder to deposit costs, which not having been paid, the execution case was dismissed on the 30th January 1914 for default.3. The question is whether the application made by the decree-holder on the 11th February 1911 for summoning witnesses was a step-in-aid of execution...
Ramjash Agarwala Vs. Indian General Navigation and Railway Company, Li ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.387
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,591-15-10, being the price of goods delivered by the plaintiff for carriage to the defendant, the India General Navigation and Railway Company, Limited. The plaintiff's agent delivered at the defendant Company's Booking Office at Mokamah 150 bags of chillies weighing 130 maunds 8 seers for being conveyed to Goalundo. On arrival of the goods at the place of destination, the plaintiff's servant paid the freight, signed the bill of lading and gave a clear receipt in the delivery register of the defendant Company. He thereupon obtained the delivery order; but did not take actual delivery as he found some of the bags damaged. He asked the booking clerk to re-weigh the goods and then deliver the same. This was refused and, in consequence, the plaintiff's servant refused to remove the goods. Hence this suit for recovery of the price of the goods.2. The liability of the defendant Company, a Steamer Company in respect of goods is tha...
Baroda Prosad Roy Chowdhury Vs. Rai Manmath Nath Mitra Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.456
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of the 24-Perganas, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. The suit was brought to recover possession of a small piece of land. The question is whether it belongs to the plaintiff or to the defendant's estate. The case has had an unfortunate history. It was heard by a former District Judge of the 24-Perganas and an appeal was preferred to this Court on the 4th August 1911. The appeal was heard and the case was remanded to the lower Appellate Court. Clearly, the litigation has been pending for many years and as regards a small piece of land of this nature the Court would be reluctant to disturb the decision of the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, unless there are strong and cogent reasons why the judgment cannot be maintained. The case has been argued before us on these points: First of all, the learned Vakil for the appellant, relying on a statem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »