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.
ishan Chandra Banerjee Vs. Hrishikesh Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.550
Greaves, J.1. The only question that really arises in this appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was wrong in declining to come to a decision as to whether the defendants Nos. 10 and 15 to 17 acquired any rights in the land in suit disentitling the plaintiff to khos possession of the land as against them. The lower Appellate Court has referred the plaintiff to fresh suits against these persons so that the rights should be decided in those suits and he has declined to decide that matter in the present suit, We think that the learned Judge was wrong in his view and he ought to have decided this question in the present suit. The decree of the Court below should, therefore, be set aside and the case sent back to decide this issue, namely, whether the defendants Nos. 10 and 15 to 17 have acquired any rights in the land in suit disentitling the plaintiff to obtain khas possession of the land in suit. Under the provisions of Order XLI, rule 23, we accordingly send this case back to the ...
Abdul Majid Vs. Hari Charn Halder and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1917
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.17
Walmsley, J.1. In this case the first question that arises is whether the surrender made by the widow in September 1910 was operative, because, if it was, there was nothing for the plaintiff's vendor to sell when the sale took place in the following March.2. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff appellant that the surrender was not really a surrender, but a sale, because there was consideration, the consideration being the rent for which a decree had been obtained and accrued since the date of the suit. It appears to me that there is no reason for saying that it was not a surrender to the landlord; no authority has been shown to us for holding that the surrender must be by an instrument registered. For these reasons this appeal must be dismissed with costs.Suam Sul Huda, J.3. I agree. Under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease of immoveable property determines, by express surrender, that is to say, by the lessee yielding up his interest under the lease to the lesso...
Reshu Kabiraj Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.649
Teunon, J.1. In this case Die petitioner has beet? required to give security for his good behaviour under the provisions of Section 118 read with Section 109 of the Criminal Procedure1 Code.2. The facts found (sic) that on the night of the 28th February last, the petitioner, who is by professional(sic) kabinaj and a dealer in cocoons, was found at about midnight in a lane in the town of Raghunath-gunje in association with two others who had in their possession house-breaking imple-ments, that on being discovered he fled that when arrested he remained silent, and that the explanation subsequently offered to the Magistrate of his presence at the time and place in question is false.3. The Magistrate has, therefore, held that the petitioner was concealing himself with the object presumably of committing the offence of house-breaking.4. In this application we are invited to set aside the order against which the Rule is directed, on the ground that the facts found do not bring the petitioner...
Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Inder Chand Bothra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.853
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Chitty, whereby he allowed the application of Inder Chandra Bothra to be at liberty to proceed with the sale of premises No. 58 Burtolla Street in the town of Calcutta, attached in execution of the decree in question. In order to state the point it is necessary to examine the facts. It appears that on the 19th of June 1896 one Kapoor Ghand Kharar obtained a decree against Maharaj Bahadur Dhunput Singh for Rs. 13,150. The application in this case was made by the holder of the assignment from the sons of the original creditor and the opposite parties are the sons of the original debtor. On the 18th of May 1907, an application was made by the son of the decree-holder for transmission of the decree to the District Court of Murshidabad for the purpose of having the decree executed. On the 28th of August 1907, an order for transmission was made by Mr. Justice Harington. The matter came before Mr. Justice Harington ...
Takarunnessa Chowdhurani Wife of MajiuddIn Chowdhury Vs. Tarini Charan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.221
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's right to a jote by purchase and for recovery of khas possession thereof.2. The plaintiff purchased two jotes, both belonging to one Mr. Bray, on the 21st March 1893 at sales held in execution of decrees for money, and he claims that the land in suit appertains to one of those two jotes situated in Mauza Ram Chandrapur. It appears that the plaintiff had brought another Suit No. 167 of 1901, in which a portion of the land in suit together with certain other lands were claimed as part of the other jote of Mr. Bray situated in Mauza Athna.3. A question has been raised' in this Court whether the lands in dispute in the present ease formed the subject-matter of the previous suit. There is no dispute that these lands were also claimed in that suit. What is contended before us is that although they were originally claimed as part of the jote in Mauza Athna, the plaintiff subsequently confined this claim to such portion of...
Nazir Ali Shikdar Vs. Banshi Badan Patwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.621
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover khas possession of the disputed lands from the defendant, who is found to have been an Under-raiyat to whom a permanent sub-lease had been granted after the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The decisions on the question whether a sub-lease granted in contravention of the provisions of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is void not only against the superior landlord but also against the raiyat himself are conflicting. It has been held in several oases that a sub-lease granted by a raiyat for a term exceeding nine years (.after the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act) and erroneously registered in contravention of the provisions of Section 85, Clause 2, is inadmissible under Section 91 of the Evidence Act to prove the tenancy. We may refer to the cases of Jarip Khan v. Durfa Bewa 15 Ind. Cas. 476: 17 C. W. N. 69: 16 C. L. J. 144, Telam Pramanik v. Adu Shaikh (2) 18 Ind. Cas. 791: 17 C. W. N. 468 and Baisnab Charan De v. Ram Kumar Kor 38 ...
Ali Mea and anr. Vs. Nana Gazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.430
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises, was one for recovery of rent and was brought by one Nana Gazi. The suit was decreed by the lower Appellate Court in favour of Nana Gazi (the plaintiff) and the defendant has preferred the second appeal.2. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the sole plaintiff-respondent died and an application was made for substitution of his representatives. Some of them were minors and they were given up on behalf of the appellant, the result being that some only of the heirs of the deceased plaintiff were substituted and the appeal was dismissed as against the minor heirs.3. A preliminary objection has been taken at the hearing of the appeal that the appeal, as now constituted, cannot proceed We think that this objection must prevail.4. Nana Gazi was the sole plaintiff respondent; and his rights as landlord devolved, on his death, on his heirs as a whole. The decree which was passed in favour of the plaintiff cannot be split up; that is, it c...
Surendra Nath Bhaumik and anr. Vs. Gayeshuddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.494
1. No one appears to show cause. We think that the questions raised in the case cannot be finally determined by the Court of Small Causes.2. We set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and direct that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the questions raised in the case under the provisions of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court. The petitioner, however, must pay the costs of the opposite party in the Court below within a fortnight of the arrival of the record in the Court below, and if the costs are not so paid the Rule will stand discharged....
Rajani Sundari Dassi and anr. Vs. Hara Sundari Dassi and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.501
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 27 and 28 against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nadia, dated the 25th March 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Chuadanga. The plaintiff brought the suit as co-sharer landlord to recover rent in arrears. The defendants Nos. 27 and 28 are admittedly co-sharer landlords. The plaintiff's case was that the rent was Rs. 49 odd. The case set up by the defendants-appellants was that true the rent was Rs. 49 odd but that the tenancy had been sub-divided and instead of one holding held at the rent of Rs. 49 odd there were two holdings, one of which was held at a rent of Rs. 34 odd of which the principal defendants were the tenants and another held at a rent of Rs. 14 odd of which the defendant No. 27 was the tenant. The first Court adopted the view of the appellants. The second Court has reversed that decision. The main point in this case turns on the provisions of Section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act as applicab...
Chairman, Bally Municipality Vs. Pramatha Nath Mookherjee and ors. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.775
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Chairman of the Bally Municipality. The subject-matter of the suit is one cotta of land. A widow of the name of Kamini Debi executed a conveyance in respect of this land on the 27th October 1904. She died on the 5th August 1909 and her daughter instituted the present suit for setting aside the document, and on her death the suit has been carried on by her sons. The property originally belonged to Rai Bahadur Kedar Nath Chatterjee husband of Kamini Debya. He left a Will of which Probate was taken by his widow on the 23rd August 1901. The suit was brought by the daughter of Kamini Debi for setting aside the document on the ground that Kamini Debi had no power to alienate the property. The main defences were that the suit was barred by limitation, that the sale benefited the estate and that the present plaintiffs, the grandsons of Kamini Debi, acquiesced in the sale. The suit was dismissed by the first Court but decreed by the Court of Appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »