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.
SharuddIn (ShaharuddIn in Vakalatnamah) Sheikh and Sabdar HossaIn Shei ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.543
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nadia, dated the' 24th May 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Krishnagar. The plaintiffs sued in a representative capacity as representing the Muhammadan inhabitants of a particular, village, for a declaration that a small plot of land in the village formed a portion of the property belonging to the local mosque where the. Muhammadan community ware accustomed to worship. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court held that the suit was not properly before the Court, on the ground that the suit being a representative suit and the plaintiffs having claimed no personal interest in the subject-matter of the dispute at all, the notice contemplated by the law had not been issued and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue on behalf of the Muhammadan community of the village. The learned Judge having disposed of the ...
Joy Chandra Das Vs. Mahamed Amir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.143
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by a scheduled creditor in an insolvency proceeding. The appeal is preferred against an order made by the learned District Judge in whose Court the insolvency proceedings are pending refusing to examine certain persons and the insolvent and his wife with reference to a portion of the property of the insolvent, which is alleged to have been concealed by the insolvent by having vested the same in the name of his wife. The case has been argued before us that the Court must have inherent jurisdiction to hold summary proceedings which Section 27 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 authorizes--to which there is a corresponding section in the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. We cannot assume that any such summary powers are given. The case must turn on the sections of the Act itself. The Provincial Insolvency Act contains no section corresponding to Section 27 of the Bankruptcy Act. The Court has, therefore, as the learned Judge remarks, no jurisdiction to summon be...
Rajani Kanta Mookerjee and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.820
1. The facts of this case are shortly these. In the course of a proceeding under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of rents and preparation of Settlement Rent Roll in accordance with the provisions of Section 104 of that. Act in respect of a Mahal called Char Khupdkar bearing Touzi .No. 1516 of the Noakhali Collectorate, plaintiffs claimed that they were occupancy raiyats in respect of all the lands described in schedule cha of the plaint. The Revenue Officer, however, held that plaintiffs were tenure-holders and only in respect of lands included in schedule ga covering an area of 1,309 bighas 9 cottas 8 chittaks, and he assessed the rent payable by the plaintiffs on the footing of their being tenants of that class by giving them an allowance of 30 per cent, on the assets. The plaintiffs being recorded as tenure holders, those holding under them were recorded as occupancy raiyats. Against these orders of the Revenue Officer passed prior to the final publication of the ...
Sheik Roshan and Sheik Jamaldi and ors. Vs. Sheik Atabali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.341
Fletcher, J.1. These two appeals are preferred by the plaintiffs against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dacca, dated the 3rd August 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Naraingunj. The suits were brought by the plaintiffs for partition. The plaintiffs originally brought two suits against the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 for possession. In these suits, they succeeded. But, on attempting to enforce the decrees of the Court, they were resisted and fresh suits had to be instituted against the defendants Nos. 1 to 6. In them, the plaintiffs succeeded with respect to a 14-anna share and they were put in joint possession with the 14-anna co-sharer defendants. The plaintiffs have also taken a settlement of another one-anna share. So, they are entitled to a 15-anna share of the property. The right they have got is that of an Occupancy raiyat. The defendants have got a settlement of one-anna from another co-sharer landlord of the interest of a mirashdar, that is, the interest...
Gauranga Sundar Mandal Vs. Satish Chandra Chowdhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.39
1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of the accused Gouranga Sundar Mandal, calling on the District Magistrate and the complainant to show cause why a transfer of the case from Bardwan should not be directed or such other order made as to this Court may seem fit. It appears that the head Cutchery of the Zemindars, of whom the accused is a servant, is at Burdwan. The accused was sometime in 1322 stationed at Jiagange Cutchery in the Murshidabad District as a gomasta in charge of the Zemindar's estates there. He is now charged with criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 89. It is not expressly mentioned in the complaint where that sum was received by the accused or where he misappropriated it. The trial began in the Burdwan Court. On the evidence, it would appear that the money was received by the accused in Calcutta. But the Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction to try the case inasmuch as the offence had not been committed within the local area of the Burdwan Cou...
Bhairab Chandra Dutt Vs. Nandiram Agrani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1917
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal70
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title, The plaintiff is a Receiver appointed by the Subordinate Judge of Howrah in a suit instituted by Jogen Chunder Dutt against Rajendra Chandra Banerjee. In that suit Jogen Chunder Dutt asked for a declaration that the property then in dispute had been purchased by him in the name of Rajendra Chandra Banerjee. On the 6th January 1914, Jogen Chunder Dutt applied for the appointment of a Receiver. On the 19th February 1914, the Subordinate Judge rejected the application on the ground that in his opinion sufficient reasons had not been assigned for the appointment of a Receiver. Jogen Chunder Dutt then appealed to this Court, with the result that, on the 27th April 1914, the order of the Subordinate Judge was set aside and the case was remitted to him with instructions to appoint a Receiver. This court also directed that security should be taken from the pe...
Rammal (Das) Koch Vs. Kakal Koli Kochini
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.208
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of the Assam Valley District, dated the 31-3t of May 1915. The appeal is preferred by one Rammal Koch. This Rammal Koch propounded in the Court of the District Judge a document, dated the 8th Asurin 1314, B.S., which is stated to be the last Will of his uncle Sripal Koch. Probate of the Will was oppose by the respondent, who is stated to be the wife of an inferior grade of the deceased person. Nobody seems to know what the position of the respondent was; but she was a person who had been married twice and having been widowed, she entered into bonds of matrimony for the third time with Sripal. Of course, the widow's marriage may not be in accord with the views of a good number of people of this country; bit it is not uncommon amongst other communities in India. There is no doubt that the respondent was not a mistress or a kept woman of Sripal but was his wife. Nobody seems to know what the qualification that ...
Bhairab Chandra Dutta Vs. Benoy Chandra Dutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.804
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The plaintiff is a Receiver appointed by the Subordinate Judge of Howrah in a suit instituted by Jogen Chandra Dutta against Rajendra Chandra Banerjee. In that suit Jogen Chandra Dutta asked for a declaration that the property then in dispute had been purchased by him in the name of Rajendra Chandra Banerjee. On the 6th January 1914 Jogen Chandra Dutta applied for the appointment of a Receiver. On the 19th February 1914, the Subordinate Judge rejected the application on the ground that in his opinion sufficient reasons had not been assigned for the appointment of a Receiver. Jogen Chandra Dutta then appealed to this Court, with the result that, on the 27th April 1914, the order of the Subordinate Judge was set aside and the ease was remitted to him with instructions to appoint a Receiver. This Court also directed that Security should be taken from the person so appointed. When th...
Syed Ali Sarkar and ors. Vs. Srimati Manikjan Bibi, Widow of Wajaddi S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.728
Teunon, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Tipperah by which he has set aside an order of the Subordinate Judge of Tipperah and proceeding under Order XLI, Rule 23, has directed the trial Court to re-admit the suit and proceed to determine it on the merits.2. There were two minor defendants in the case, they having been substituted as defendants on the death of their father. The point taken before the learned District Judge was that in the trial in the first Court the minors had not been properly represented. It appears that on the death of the father when they were substituted as defendants, they were represented by the plaintiffs to be persons of full age. Thereupon the mother, who has now appeared as defendant 1 ka, appeared and filed a written statement in which she sets out her defence to the suit and at the same time intimates that the two defendants to whom I have referred have been improperly described as majors and were in fact minors. She further...
Natibulla Akanda and ors. Vs. Badi (Badiulla in Vakalatnamah) Bepari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.243
1. This is an appeal by the tenants defendants in a suit for rent. It is conceded that the plaintiff-landlord is a raiyat. It is also conceded that the defendants-appellants are under-raiyats. It is farther conceded that the defendants under-raiyats are holding under & registered lease. The holding, it appears, measures 15 bighas of land. The portion sub-let to the tenants-defendants measures 7 bighas. The rent payable by the raiyat for his 15 bighas of land is Rs. 6-14-0. In respect of the 7 bighas he elaims from the tenants-defendants at the rate of Rs. 27-8-0.2. The appellants contend that by virtue of the provision of Section 48 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the utmost that the plaintiff raiyat is entitled to recover is rent at the rate of Rs. 6-14-0 plus 50 per cent., that is to say, Rs. 10 5-0. In the Trial Court rent was decreed at that rate. But on appeal the District Judge on the strength of the case of Nim Ghand Shaha v. Joy Chandra Nath (1) held that Section 48 of the Bengal Ten...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »