Kolkata Court July 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.
iswar Chandra Bera Vs. Kali Charan Santra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.726
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The trial Court decreed the claim in fall; the lower Appellate Court has reduced the amount by one hair.2. The plaintiff seeks to recover arrears of rent as transferee of a usufructuary mortgage from the proprietor, who had previously granted a putni lease to the first defendant. The tenant resists the claim on the ground that under Section 78 of the Land Registration Ant, the plaintiff is not entitled to rent in excess of the share for which he has registered his name in the Collectorate. This raises three questions; first, is the amount claimed 'rent' within the meaning of Section 78; secondly, is the plaintiff 'mortgagee' within the meaning of that section; and thirdly, is the plaintiff entitled to the benefit of Section 813. As regards the first point, the plaintiff contends that the amount he seeks to recover is described as 'malikana' in the putni lease, and cannot consequently be regarded as 'rent' ...
Mohendra Nath Das and anr. Vs. Mohi Lal Koley and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.770
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order of dismissal of an application to enforce a private award. There were differences between the plaintiffs and the defendants regarding the boundary between their respective homesteads. On the 17th November 1914, they appointed five persons as arbitrators to settle the dispute. The arbitrators made their award on the 6th July 1915. By their award they fixed the boundary line between the homesteads and directed the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 620 as one-half share of the remuneration and travelling expenses of one of the arbitrators, which had been paid in full by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereupon applied under paragraph 20 of the Second Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to enforce the award. The Court of first instance dismissed the application, on the ground that the arbitrators acted in excess of their authority when they directed the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the sum mentioned in the award. Upo...
Nogendra Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Ashutosh Roy Chowdhury and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.627
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the learned District Judge of the 24-Pergannahs, dated the 2nd April 1913, modifying the decision of the Munsif at Baruipore. The action was an action instituted, at first, in a Court of Small Causes to recover damages by the plaintiffs for certain wrongful acts said to have been done by the defendants with reference to a property to which they were both jointly entitled. The learned Judge in the Small Cause Court, in the exercise of his discretion under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, thought fit to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the regular Civil Court. The only question now for our decision is, 'does a second appeal lie or is a second appeal barred under Section 102, Civil Procedure Code.' It has been decided quite clearly that the mere fact that the Judge exercised his discretion under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act does not give the parties a ...
Shanu Sheikh Vs. Dhani Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.934
1. This is a Rule taken out at the instance of the defendant calling upon the plaintiff opposite-party lo show cause why the order of the lower Appellate Court permitting him to withdraw the appeal and the original suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action should not be set aside. The case was tried before the Munsif at considerable length. A number of issues were raised and the Munsif decided that the suit was barred by limitation and also held that the plaintiff had no title. When the case went up on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, passed an order permitting the plaintiff-appellant to withdraw the appeal and the original suit. He said: As there were some defects in the plaint, the plaintiff is permitted to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action.' In his petition for leave to withdraw the plaintiff does not appear to have stated what the defects were. In his petition he said: through the mistake of the writer who drew the plaint some important H...
Krishna Das Roy and ors. Vs. Kali Tara Chowdhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.80
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises oat of an application for execution of a decree. The appellant brought a suit for arrears of rent against six persons who were the tenants and obtained a decree. It appears that three of them had died before the institution of the suit, and when the decree-holder brought the representatives of the deceased judgment-debtors on the record in the proceedings in execution of the decree, they objected to the execution on the ground that the decree was a nullity having been obtained against persons who were dead, and the Court of first instance gave effect to the contention, and the order of that Court was confirmed by the Court of Appeal below. The decree-holder has appealed to this Court, and it is contended on his behalf that although the decree was not binding upon the heirs of the judgment-debtors who were not living at the date of the suit, the liability of the judgment-debtors is joint and several and that the decree-holder is competent to proc...
Krishna Chandra Dutta Roy, Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend Promad ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.477
Chitty, J.1. This appeal is preferred by defendant No. 18 and arises out of a partition suit brought by Hemaja Sanker Nandi Mozumdar and others against a number of defendants for partition of a taluq known as Tilak Nandi Ram Mozumdar No. 2624 with a Sudder Jama of Rs. 27-12-0. Out of the same case arose Appeal No. 328 of 1914 which we decided last week. The dispute in the present appeal is between Krishna Chandra Dntta Roy--defendant No. 18--the minor son of Jagan Chandra Dutta Roy and his wife Promoda Moyi on the one side and the plaintiffs who are the descendants of Pran Shanker on the other. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table. There is no dispute as to the share of the plaintiffs in this estate which they inherited from their ancestor Pran Shanker. They claim, however, in addition to that 5-annas 10-gundas share a portion of another 5-annas 10-gundas share which in ordinary course of inheritance would have devolved from Bimola Shanker u...
Jadab Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Mafijuddi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.615
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated the 28th February 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Narail. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage security The only question that has been raised in this appeal is a question with regard to the liability of the defendant No. 9 and his property. The defendant No. 9 set up two cases. First of all, he set up the case that he, in consideration of the payment of Rs. 161, had procured from the mortgagee a release of his personal liability in respect of the mortgage money. The answer to that was that the payment could not be proved because the contract between the parties as contained in the mortgage deed provided that a payment on account of the mortgage must be endorsed on the back of the mortgage-bond. But the arrangement that the learned Judge has found to be proved in this case is not an arrangement covered by the terms of the mortgage. It is an arrange...
Harinath Banerjee Vs. Pramathanath Dey Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.633
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the learned District Judge of Jessore, dated the 30th March 1916, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The suit was brought to specifically enforce a contract contained in a document called a bainapattra. A bainapattra is, as I understand from the slight knowledge that I have of the vernacular, a document evidencing a deposit, and the deposit that was evidenced in this case was a sum of Rs. 785 that was paid for the grant of a permanent putni lease. The suit has been decided in the Court below on one and only one point, and that is this; that the bainapattra is a lease or an agreement for a lease within the meaning of the Indian Registration Act and it not having been registered, having regard to Section 49 of the same Act, the document is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. The view of the learned Judge that the document cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose wha...
Kumud Kamini Dasi and ors. Vs. Khudumani Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.202
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Murshidabad, dated the 21st March 1916, modifying the decision of the Munsif at Berhampur. The case is a small one and it is unfortunate that we have got to send the case back, as we have no other alternative because the learned District Judge has not disposed of the case in a proper manner. The suit was brought by a mail and his wife, the two plaintiffs, against the man's mother-in-law for a declaration that a certain kobala which bore the vernacular date corresponding to some other date in April 1912 was void and inoperative on the ground that it was obtained by misrepresentation, undue influence and want of consideration, and as a consequence the plaintiff asked for khas possession of certain property. The plaintiff No. 2 in the year 1909 acquired certain plots of land. Of one of these plots or part of the land that was acquired tie defendant No. 1, who is the mother of the plaintiff No. 2, was an unde...
iswar Chandra Sarma and ors. Vs. Kailash Chandra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.639
1. The plaintiff-appellant as the purchaser of a non- transferable occupancy, holding at a sale held in execution of a money-decree brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, to recover possession of the holding from the defendants. The holding belonged to one Ram Manikya, and as we have said, it was purchased by the Plaintiff in execution of a money-decree on the 2lst May 1901 : but before the plaintiff took possession from Court, defendant No. 1 purchased the holding at another sale held in execution of a money-decree in September in 1902 and obtained delivery of Possession in 19032. It is found that the heirs of the tenant Ram Manikya had at that time left the land and even the homestead without arranging for the payment of rent, and that there was an abandonment of the holding by the heirs of the tenant. That being so, the landlord had a right to enter upon the land. He accepted rent from the defendants and treated-them as tenants and there was practically a settlement with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »