Kolkata Court June 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.
Paran Chandra Karmakar and ors. Vs. Khazez Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.262
Fletcher, J.1. The judgment in this case must be set aside and the case mast go back to be re-heard by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. The point in this case is this: The plaintiffs' title is admitted. They claimed to eject the defendant on the ground that the defendant held a subordinate interest which had terminated, namely, an under-raiyati interest which had been determined by a notice to quit. The defendant alleged that he had a larger interest than that of an under-raiyat, and, therefore, was not liable to be ejected. The learned Judge held that the onus was on the plaintiffs. I do not agree with the learned Judge. The authorities in this Court are clearly the other way. In addition to the cases referred to by the learned Judge, the following authorities may be referred to, namely, the oases reported as Hiramoti Dassya v. Annoda Prosad Ghosh 7 C. L. J. 553. Baraik Kamal Sahi v. Lilhu Christian 8 C. L. J. 170. and Bhagwat Buksh Roy v. Sheo Pershad Sahu 21 Ind. Cas....
Gobinda Chundra Pal, Lunatic, by His Next Friend Padma Lochun Pal, and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.73
Beachcroft, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, dismissing the appellant's application for execution.2. On the 18th April 1899 the respondent executed a mortgage-bond in favour of the predecessor of the appellant, and on the same day executed a security bond in his favour. The security bond covered thirty-seven properties which were included in the mortgage-bond. In due course decrees were obtained on both bonds. In the decree made in the suit on the security bond on the 25th April 1907, the following words are important, 'this suit be decreed ex parts, that the defendant do pay to the plaintiffs the aforesaid Rs. 55,000 claimed and Rs. 1,832 the cost of this suit, plaintiffs' lien to the properties mentioned in the security bond is declared, but the plaintiffs cannot get a decree for sale of the said properties mentioned in the security bond as properties mortgaged and that the plaintiffs' prayer to the above effect is rejected.' The decree, therefo...
Jagabandhu Pal Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Haladhar Pal Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.269
Beachcroft, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors against an order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing their objection and ordering execution to proceed in execution proceedings on a mortgage decree.2. On the 23rd August 1894 fourteen persons took a patni lease in the names of four of their number paying a salami of Rs. 39,000. Partly for the purpose of raising the necessary funds money had been borrowed by different combinations of these persons. In one of these transactions a mortgage bond for Rs. 12,000 was executed on the 17th August 1894 by ten of the fourteen persons, though it was expressly stated in the mortgage bond that two of the ten had no interest in the property mortgaged.3. On the 29th August 1894 the fourteen persons executed an ekrarnama, in which it was stated that the parties wished to settle their shares and make arrangements for the re-payment of the debts so as to avoid disputes in future. The interests in the patni allocated to individuals were sat out i...
Abdul Aziz Mandal and ors. Vs. Behari Lal Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.711
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nadia, dated the 2nd June 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Ranaghat. The suit was brought for rent of four holdings. The plaintiff sued as the person entitled to a lien, he being put in possession of the property under the provisions' of Section 13, Sub-section (4), of Regulation VIII of 1819. The suit was brought for the years 1316 and 1317. A portion of the rent of 1316 had accrued due prior to the date the mortgagee, the plaintiff, was put into possession. Out of the points that were-raised in the lower Courts, only two points have been argued in this Court. The first point is whether the plaintiff can recover as a landlord within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act the kist of rent' for 1315, which accrued due before he was put into possession under the provisions of Section 13, Sub-section (4), of Regulation VIII of 1819 : and the second point is, 'does the peri...
Degendra Chundra Sen and anr. Vs. Nritya Gopal Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.184
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiffs, who are Wards under the Court of Wards.2. The suit which was instituted by their next friend Mr. Monier, Manager of the Court of Wards, was one for recovery of possession of certain lands on establishment of the plaintiffs' title thereto. It appears that there was a partition of the estate within which these lands were situate, between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1. The partition took place in Chait 1305 corresponding to April 1899. The plaintiffs' case was that these lands were part of the estate which fell to their share, that they went under water and then rose again in Rartik 1366 corresponding to October 1899. The suit was instituted on the 18th April 1911 (the Court having been closed from 13th to 17th April 1911) and within 12 years from the 1st Baisnkh 1306, corresponding to 13th April 1899. It wan, however, instituted without the authority of the Court of Wards.3. Section 55 of the. Court of Wards Act provides tha...
Surajubala Dassi and ors. Vs. Jageswar Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.693
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order of rejection of the plaint, in a suit instituted by her against the executors of the estate of her father-in-law for administration, for accounts and for other incidental reliefs. She stated that the value of the estate left by her father in-law was Rs. 30,000, but she valued the claim for accounts at Rs. 100. She paid Court-fees ad valorem on this sum of Rs. 100 and also paid an additional sum of Rs. 10 apparently on the ground that the claim for administration was incapable of accurate valuation, at least at that stage. The defendants contended that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff was inadequate and that the suit could not consequently proceed. Their argument in substance was that, as for purposes of jurisdiction, the plaintiff had valued the suit at Rs. 30,000, she was bound to pay Court-fees upon that valuation. The Subordinate Judge thereupon framed an issue to the following effect: 'Has the plaint been insufficiently stam...
Abdul Majid Mian and anr. Vs. Baksha Ali and ors. and Srimaty Halimann ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.662
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation.2. The plaintiff purchased the land in suit in the year 1901 and obtained symbolical possession in 1907. The present suit was instituted on the 18th May 1912. The defendants Nos. 14 and 15 who are the appellants in this Court pleaded that they had obtained a settlement of the land from the landlord in the year 1898 and had been in possession of the land ever since in their own right.3. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiff was never in possession and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge was of opinion that the suit was not barred by limitation because it was instituted within twelve years of the date of the confirmation of sale.4. But if, as the defendants allege, they were in possession of the land from before the date of the sale and for a period of twelve years under an independent title, the plaintiff's claim...
Rahamat Ali and ors. Vs. Chikan Bibi Wife of Azgar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.684
1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the wakfnama set up by the defendant is a valid document.2. In determining the question, we have to see whether the effect of the deed was to give the property in question substantially to religious and charitable uses, or whether the effect was to give the properly in substance to the donor's family. See Mujib un-nissu v. Abdur Rahim 28 I. A, 15 : 5 C. W. N. 77 : 23 A. 233 : 11 M. L. J. 58 : 3 Bom. L. R. 114 : 7 Sar. P. C. J. 829 (P. C.).4. The wakfnama enjoins the mutawalli to perform the acts and ceremonies mentioned in the documents and provides for the preservation and repair of the mosque. Then it says that after deducting the expenses for all these acts from the income of the wakf property, the daughters of the founder would take the balance of the income as their remuneration.5. The dominating purpose and intention of the grantor in executing the deed evidently was to provide for religious and charitable purposes and the s...
Bireswar Mookerjee and ors. Vs. Ambika Charan Battacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.472
1. The question for determination in this Rule is whether an application presented on the 7th June 1916 for execution of a decree for money, made on the 24th November 1909, is or is riot barred by limitation. The application is prima facie barred by limitation under Article 182 of the second Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. The decree-holder consequently seeks to escape the bar of limitation by reference to two payments alleged to have been made by the eldest brother of the petitioners on the 8th, October 1912 and the 9th June 1913 respectively. The petitioners argue, first, that as the payments were not certified they cannot be taken into account; and secondly, that if taken into account they are of no avail under Section 21 of the Indian Limitation Act. In our opinion, these contentions are well-founded and must prevail.2. As regards the first contention, it is not disputed that neither of these payments was certified to the Court; consequently, under Order XXI, Rule 2, Sub-rul...
Surendra Krishna Roychoudhury and ors. Vs. Peary Mohan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.698
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the learned Special Judge of the 24 Pergannabs sitting under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act affirming the decision of the Settlement Officer at Alipore. The appeal arises out of a proceeding under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the only question raised in the case whether the Courts were limited to the question as to who was in possession and, having decided that point, whether they could go any further and adjudicate on the rights of the parties. 1 think on the question of possession there is a short answer, namely, that this point was not raised in either of the Courts below. It is quite true that an issue was settled as to who was in possession, but on appeal, before the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, it is quite clear that no stress was placed upon this question and the learned Judge did not deal with the case on that footing. I think that the authorities of this Court show q...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »