Kolkata Court August 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.
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Digambar Nanda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.43
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council in a suit instituted by the respondent under Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act for declaration that he is an occupancy raiyat in respect of the subject-matter of the litigation and for incidental reliefs. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit and has held that the plaintiff is not a tenure-holder but an occupancy raiyat and that the existing rent which the plaintiff was liable to pay before the last survey and settlement proceedings was fair and equitable. The substantial question in controversy, consequently, is whether the plaintiff is an occupancy raiyat as he alleges, or whether he is a tenure holder as recorded by the Revenue Authorities. The root of the title of the plaintiff is an amalnamah granted on the 19th June 1868 to his father by Lal Chand Bhuia, the then settlement-holder under the Government. This document recites that the mauzas mentioned were settled with the grantee for bringing them under ...
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Gangadhar Nanda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.228
1. This is an appeal by the Sacretary of State for India in Council against a decree in a suit instituted by the respondent on the 16th May 1910, under Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The lands in suit are comprised in three villages--Dakhin Baraj, Uttar Dighe and Dhai Knkusria. The settlement roll, to which exception was taken by the plaintiff, was published, in the case of the first village on the 2nd June 1910, and in the case of the other two villages on the 17th June 1910. As regards the claim in respect of the first village, objection is taken that the suit is barred under Sub-section (2) of Section 104H, which provides that a suit under Sub-section (1) must be instituted within 6 months of the date of the certificate of final publication of the Record of Eights. This objection does not apply to the second and third villages, and for the reasons assigned in our judgment in Secretary of State v. Digambar Nanda 45 Ind. Cas. 43 : 27 C.L.J. 834 [Appeal from Original Decree No...
Jagat Chandra Acharji and anr. Vs. Syama Charan Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.999
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In these two cases the point which has been raised (the same point has been raised in each case), is a very unusual point, and one upon which there is no authority.2. What happened is as follows: Mr. Justice Holmwood sitting with Mr. Justice Chapman heard these second appeals under Order XLI, Rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code and dismissed them. After that Mr. Justice Chapman took a month's leave immediately before the long vacation, and while he was away applications were made to Mr. Justice Holmwood for a review of the judgments which had been delivered by him and Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. Justice Holmwood heard the applications for review and dismissed them. As far as I understand the facts, the parties did not object at the time of his hearing the applications on the ground that he had no jurisdiction so to do: but, of course, that fact or the consent of parties will not give jurisdiction if he had no jurisdiction under the Act.3. The learned Vakil who ...
Nilmoni Dey Vs. Hira Lal Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.452
1. The events which led to the issue of this Rule may be briefly stated. One Bhusan Chandra Bnar appointed three persons A, B, and C as executors to his Will. After his death, one of his creditors X instituted a suit against two of these executors A and B for recovery of his dues from the estate. The suit was not defended and an ex parte decree was made on the 17th April 1917. A, one of the executors, who was himself a creditor of the estate, instituted a suit against B and G for recovery of his dues. The claim was decreed. The question now arises, whether these two decree-holders are entitled to rateable distribution of the assets under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Subordinate Judge has held that X is not entitled to claim rateable distribution along with A. In our opinion this view cannot be supported.2. It may be conceded that Order XXXI, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, provides that where there are several executors, they shall all be made parties to a suit against ...
Saraj Ranjan Chowdhury Vs. Prem Chand Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.781
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent in respect of an appeal in which Mr. Justice Doss and my learned brother Mr. Justice Richardson differed in opinion.2. The judgments were delivered so long ago as June 1909. Both the judgments were read by Mr. Justice Richardson, because, as we have been informed, on that date Mr. Justice Doss was away on leave; and apparently some doubt arose as to whether the judgment of Mr. Justice Doss was a valid judgment, having regard to the fact that that was read by my learned brother Mr. Justice Richardson when Mr. Justice Doss was away from Court on leave, and apparently this matter was left in abeyance for many years. It was brought before my learned brother Mr. Justice Mookerjee and me last year, and it was argued on the one hand that Mr. Justice Doss's judgment was a valid judgment, and on the other that it was not a valid judgment. We came to the conclusion that it was a valid judgment and consequently the appellant wo...
Mahamad Idris Mbah Vs. Mahamad Esahak and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.192
1. This appeal is based on the ground that the Court failed to exercise jurisdiction in not recording any order on the petition of compromise and that the Court of Appeal should have given effect to the compromise petition filed by the parties. A petition was filed on the 16th July 1915 and on the 22nd July an order was passed which, I think, should be read as an order refusing to record the compromise. The remedy, therefore, of the appellant before us was to appeal from that order instead of, as he has done, appealing from the final judgment dealing with the case on the merits dated the 26th August 1915.2. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs....
Gunabala Chowdhurani Vs. Hem Nalini Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.24
1. This suit was one for declaring a compromise decree Void on the ground of fraud and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from executing the same and also for other reliefs.2. The plaintiff is a pardanashin Hindu widow and she sues on the ground that the decree is void on account of fraud and claims a permanent injunction. Two Subordinate Judges have held that a temporary injunction should be issued. It was pointed out that having regard to the fact that the suit was for a permanent injunction the denial of a temporary injunction would be to defeat the object of this suit. It has been said that the learned Judge has not considered the question as to whether or not the plaintiff had any chance of success and it has been contended before us that on the basis of the proceedings there are no merits at all. On the contrary the learned Judge has found that if a temporary injunction be refused, then 'it will have', to use his own words, 'the unfortunate effect of a denial of...
Sadupadhya Umeshanand Oja High First of the Tamile of Baidyanath Vs. t ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.772
1. This Rule was granted upon the application of the high priest of the Temple of Baidyanath, who was elected to the office in execution of a decree of this Court, made in affirmance of the decree of the Court below in a suit instituted under Section 539 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. [Shailajananda Dut Jha v. Umeshanunda Dut Jha 20 L.J. 460]. A scheme for the management of the temple was drawn up pursuant to that decree and from time to time the scheme has been amended by order of this Court. [Umeshananda Dut Jha v. Ravaneswar Provad Singh 17 Ind. Cas. 969 : 16 C.L.J. 431 : 17 C.W.N. 841 and Umeshananda Jha v. Maharaja Sir Ravaneswar Prosad Singh R.A. No. 111 of 1916]. Under the decree of this Court the high priest was appointed the trustee, and a Committee of management was appointed to supervise the work of the temple. On the present occasion, the application is made by the high priest for insertion of a clause in the scheme to the effect that the Maharaja of Gidhour who is a ...
The Bank of Upper India Vs. the Administrator-general of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.529
Asutosh Chaudhuri, J.1. This matter was before me on the 2nd September 1915 in connection with the claim of the Administrator-General of Bengal for the refund of a certain sum by the Punjab Government, which that Government claimed the right to set off against the amount which was due to it for still-head duty.2. The question which now comes up for consideration arises out of the claim of that Government to priority, in respect of the said amount for still-head duty, over the Alliance Bank of Simla, Limited, and the Delhi and London Bank, claimants Nos. 34 and 33, who are mortgagees.3. The deceased died on the 20th January 1911. This suit was instituted on the 27th May 1912 by the plaintiff Bank as unsecured creditors. Letters of Administration to the estate were granted by this Court to the Administrator-General on the 28th March 1912. The mortgages to the present claimants were executed on the 10th April 1903 and the 2nd November 1910 respectively. By an order made by this Court on t...
George Burgh Mcnair Vs. J. D. Campbell and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.532
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by Mr. McNair calling on Messrs. Donald Campbell and Company, who are the decree-holders in claim case No. 4 of 1917 of the third Court of the Subordinate Judge at Mymensingh and also on the Subordinate Judge to show cause why the notice issued by the paid Subordinate Judge on the 9th July 1917 should not be cancelled. The facts so far as material are very short. This firm of Messrs. Donald Campbell and Company sued a gentleman of the name of A. FC Gaznavi in the Original Side of this Court and obtained a decree for about six lacs of rupees. That decree of this Court was sent for execution to the Court at Mymensingh and, presumably, Messrs. Donald Campbell and Company had given credit to Mr. A. K. Gaznavi on the footing that he was a person of wealth and was able to meet any sum that might become due to them from him on the agreement on which he entered into these transactions. The decree-holders then proceeded to attach certain properties that ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »