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.
Gridutta Sarma, and on His Death His Heiress and Legal Representative ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.260
1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1, Giri Dutta Sarma, against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of the Assam Valley Districts confirming the decree of the Munsif of Gouhati. The suit wan brought by several persons as Bardeories of the Janardan temple against the 1st defendant, for a declaration that the land in dispute was Janardan temple land and for a permanent injunction against the first defendant restraining him from alienating the same or treating it as his personal property. 31 Bardeories joined in bringing the suit and 7 others were added as pro forma defendants. Later on 23 more Bardeories were added as parties defendant, thus bringing on the record, as the Courts have found, all the Bardeories who are connected with this temple.2. The only question of law which has been argued before us is that the suit was not maintainable except under the provisions of Section 2, Civil 'Procedure Code. It was argued that if this decree was allowed to be passed, the appellant might be s...
Churamoni Mondal Vs. Rajendra Kumar Singha and on His Death His Heirs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.390
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against a decision of the learned Additional District's Judge of the 24-Pergannahs, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Diamond Harbour. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover the amount that might be found due to him on taking an account from the first defendant. The plaintiff sued as the transferee of an actionable claim that had been transferred to him by the pro forma defendant, the pro forma defendant having been the principal and the defendant No. 1 his agent. The case was contested in the Courts below on the question as to whether the right was capable of transfer on the ground that the right to recover the money which might be found due on taking the account from the defendant-No. 1 was a mere right to sue within the meaning of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, and was, therefore, not capable of transfer. The right to call for accounts is moveable property and, that being so, the transfer of an interest in ...
Amrita Lal Bose and ors. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.305
Teunon, J.1. (March 30, 1917.)---These six Rules were issued at the instance of three petitioners Amrita Lal Bose, Hari Prosad Bose and Dasu Charan Neogi. These three persons, it is admitted, are the co-sharer owners of a Theatre known as the Star Theatre situated in Cornwallis Street in the town of Calcutta and each, it appears, takes an active part in the management thereof.2. On the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 12th and 13th November the performance at this Theatre was continued beyond the hour of 1 a.m. Six prosecutions were, therefore, instituted against the petitioners, who in each case were convicted on admissions made on behalf of all by their authorised agent, and sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 20.3. In each case an application was made to this Court on the 2nd of January 1917 and the six Rules now before us were issued, calling upon the Municipal Magistrate and the Chairman of the Corporation to show cause why in each case the sentences complained of should not be modified.4. By ...
Rakhal Mandal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.160
1. In these two Rules the only question involved is, whether proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate under the special powers conferred upon him by Section 107(2), Criminal Procedure Code, must be continued to the end in this Court or whether they may be transferred by, him to the Court of some subordinate Magistrate otherwise competent to deal with the matter. This question does not now come before this Court for the first time. In the case of Surjya Ranta Roy Chowdhry v. Emperor 31 C. 350 : 1 Cr. L.J. 344 the question was argued at the Bar and discussed at length, and the learned Judges who hearj that case took the view that it was sufficient that the District Magistrate should initiate the proceedings. In taking that view they further relied upon the case decided in the High Court of Allahabad in King-Emperor v. Munna 24 A. 151 : A.W.N. (901) 203. In a subsequent case in this Court in 1909 a Divisional Bench took the contrary view. But from the report of that case Nirbikar ...
Abhoya Charan Ghosh and ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.506
1. In this case an appeal was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge against a decision of the Munsif on 9th August 1915. In September 1915 defendant No. 8 Amar Chaud Dutt died. No substitution was made of his heirs. The appeal was heard in July 1916 and, on 27th July, the lower Appellate Court's decree was passed. Against that decision ah appeal was filed in this Court on 30th August 1916 with the name of defendant No. 8 as a party. The appellants say that they came to know of the defendant No. 8's death on 10th February 1917 when an; attempt was made to serve the notices of the appeal. An application was made to the lower Appellate Court to re-hear the appeal against the heirs and legal representatives of defendant No. 8 on the ground that the latter had died shortly before the hearing of the appeal in that Court. The learned Subordinate Judge declined to entertain the application regarding it as one for, review and considering that the case being under appeal to this Court he h...
Mitu Sheikh Vs. Amrita Lal Sen and anr. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.546
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal arises put of a suit in ejectment brought by the landlords to recover certain chur land, on the allegation that the term of the lease in writing lender which the tenant held had expired. The land, as I have already said, is t chur land. The learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court found that the lease was not admissible in evidence and he decided the rights of the parties apart from the contract of tenancy that they entered into but on the footing of accustom of utbandi The custom of utbandi is referred to in the various Gazetteers or other official or demi-official work's. It is apparently a custom whereby the tenant takes the property for cultivation for a particular season. That clearly is not the tenancy in this case. s The tenancy here, according to the, contract between the parties, was for a term of 6 f years. The view of the learned Judge: that the lease between the parties cannot be, looked at is obviously wrong. The lease in this case was pleaded ...
Oli Sha and ors. Vs. Farid Sardar and ors. and Nila Shah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.690
1. It is common ground between the parties to this suit that three persons Nidhi, Suba and Hakim, who were related in some degree to each other, joined in purchasing in the year 1231 certain land, including the land in dispute. The plaintiffs, the respondents before us, are the representatives of Suba and Hakim. The representatives of Nidhi are described by the District Judge as pro forma defendants, but it appears from the judgment of the Munsif that they, as well as the tenant defendants, contested the suit.2. The plaintiffs brought the suit for a declaration that they were entitled between them as heirs of Suba and Hakim to a two-thirds share of the disputed land and for khas possession to the extent of the share claimed. The defendants alleged that the land purchased in 1281 had long ago been partitioned and that the disputed land had fallen to Nidhi's share.3. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif whose decree, however, was reversed by the learned District Judge on appeal. ...
Shyama Charan Bhattacharjee Vs. Mustafizar Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.769
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent.2. The plaintiff claims the entire rent of the tenure from the defendant on the ground that he is the person registered under the Land Registration Act as proprietor of the entire 16 annas of the superior interest. The Court of first instance gave him a decree for the entire rent, but the learned Subordinate Judge, on appeal, has reversed that decree and dismissed the suit.3. It appears that the proprietary interest belonged to two persons Ram Kant and Ram Krishna in equal shares. Ram Kant's interest devolved on his three sons, two of whom executed a conveyance in respect of 8 annas share to the plaintiff. The two sons of Ram Kant have been made parties to the suit as pro forma defendants. The third son is alleged to be insane. However that may be, the plaintiff got his name registered with respect to the 8 annas share of Ram Kant. The 8 annas which belonged to Pran Krishna, was purchased in the name of the plaintiff's son Naba Chandra. The ...
Satya Kumar Mukherjee Vs. the Manager, Benares Bank, Limited, and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.335
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Hooghly, dated the 17th April 1917, whereby he refused an application to dissolve an ex parte injunction granted by him restraining the appellant before us from dealing with certain promissory notes of the value of Rs. 26,000 odd standing in the name of the appellant. The facts are shortly as follows. The appellant has a brother Surjya Kumar Mukerjee, and he states before us that be separated from him in the year 1897 and it appears that the brother carried on business at Muzafferpur with two other persons. This partnership was dissolved by the Court and the Benares Bank, who are the respondents before us, were creditors of the firm. I may remark in passing that the appellant was also a creditor of the firm. Surjya Kumar was adjudicated an insolvent on his own petition by the Hooghly Court. After his adjudication the Benares Bank applied to the Court in the insolvency, alleging that the Government securities already referre...
Nibaran Chandra Sen Vs. Nagendra Chandra Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.984
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage bond executed by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2, who is the purchaser of the equity of redemption in respect of one of the properties in Schedule II at a sale held in execution of a decree upon a subsequent mortgage, and the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who were subsequently added as parties defendants to the suit upon objection raised by the defendant No. 2, contested the suit. The defendant No. 2 in a written statement admitted that the defendant No. 1 had executed the bond but pleaded that the bond was not a bona fide transaction and that no consideration passed.2. The Court of first instance decreed the suit, but that decree was reversed and the suit dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.3. The first question for consideration is whether the lower Appellate Court was right in holding the bond to be invalid because one of the attesting witnesses was not examined as required by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »