Kolkata Court January 1918 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.
Jahurmul Babu Vs. Keramutullah Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.196
1. The only point which was or could be argued on this appeal relates to the question whether the gomasta Ishan Chandra Pandey had authority to settle the disputed yote or holding with the defendant Karamntullah. It is contended that the Courts below have not found that he had authority. In the first Court 12 issues were found but there is no specific issue directed to that question. As to evidence it appears that the defendant Keramutnllah produced an amalnama signed by the gomaeta and certain rent receipts also signed by the gomasta. In the Trial Court the learned Subordinate Judge delivered a long and exhaustive judgment from which it would seem that as the case was placed before him, the discussion turned on the genuineness of the documents referred to and not on the question of the gomasla's authority. If the latter question had been argued before the learned Subordinate Judge in the way in which it has been argued before us, the learned Subordinate Judge would no doubt have dealt...
Baliram Koch Vs. Sabha Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.516
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the Assam Valley Districts, dated the 16th February 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Mangaldai. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover a certain sum of money said to be due on a simple money-bond dated the 8th February 1908. The suit was instituted on the 23rd January 1915. In order to show that his suit was not barred under the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, the plaintiff relied upon a part-payment of the principal said to have been made on the 24th January 1910 and evidenced by an endorsement in writing on the back of the bond. The ground on which the learned Judge decided the case was that the endorsement of the fact of part-payment of the principal on the back of the bond was not signed by the person making the payment, that is, the defendant, nor did it bear his mask, he being illiterate. It is quite clear on the evidence that the defendant could not...
Probodh Chandra Mitra Vs. Indra Chandra Chaule
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.925
Richardson, J.1. On the facts as found by the learned Subordinate Judge in the Court of Appeal below it does not appear that the defendant-respondent was evicted from the land which he held under the plaintiff by title paramount. The Subordinate Judge seems to be in error in holding that the rent claimed by the plaintiff is not due and payable by the defendant. We have been referred to a consent decree. It is argued that according to the terms of that decree in the event of the defendant refusing to cultivate the land and to render the plaintiff his share of the produce, the only remedy which the plaintiff has is to eject the defendant. As I understand the decree, however, the clause relating to ejectment is in the nature of a clause for re-entry and the document has not the effect of depriving the plaintiff as landlord of his ordinary right as such to sue for the arrears of rent due by the tenant. In this view the appeal should be allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower Appellat...
Edon Mollah and ors. Vs. Shaik Badan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.49
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Farid-pore, dated the 7th August 1914, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the Second Court at Bhanga. The suit was one for ejectment brought by a lessee claiming under the same landlord as the defendant. The question, therefore, is who has got a prior title. The obvious facts are these:2. The defendant originally had a lease of, this land. There is no doubt about that. A litigation took place between him and the landlord. The case went up to tHe High Court and Rs. 300 was decreed, against the defendant and another person named Radir. According to the findings, terms of settlement were determined and these terms of settlement, it was found by both the lower Courts, were these: that if the defendant Edon paid to the landlord Rs. 150 in each out of the decretal amount, the landlord would re let two of the plots (that is, the land in contest in the present suit) to Edon. ...
Ambika Charan Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Sarat Chandra Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.913
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dacca affirming the decision of the Munsif at Manickganj. The suit was brought to recover a jote on the footing that it was a kaemi jote. The defendant No. 1 who is the landlord of l-6th of the jote opposed the plaintiffs'claim. He denied that the' plaintiffs had a Jcaemi interest and be stated that their predecessor had a temporary ordinary occupancy raiyati jote. The first Court held that the jote was not Tcaemi and left the question as to whether the plaintiffs had an occupancy right by recognition open. The lower Appellate Court agreed with the primary Court and stated that the question of oooupaney right was not before the Court and then proceeded to state that, if it had been before the Court, the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation. Only two questions are urged in this appeal. First of all, that the plaintiffs should have liberty to withdraw the whole suit. Th...
Haridas Dey Vs. Kailash Chandra Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.480
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dacca, dated the 23rd April 1915, modifying the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of a plot of land on the ground that the pro forma defendants who were his burgadars had been dispossessed by the defendant No. 2 and the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 all acting together. One defendant only, namely, the defendant No. 2 contested the suit, and, therefore, it seems to have been assumed that under the terms of the Civil Procedure Code the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2--were the only parties who were interested in the matter and accordingly those two parties--the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. The arbitrators had made their award. The award was presented to the Court and no objection within the time allowed by the Indian Limitation Act was preferred against the award so made. Th...
Lakshmi Narayan Roy and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.497a
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in a suit against the Secretary of State and relates to a charge described as peshkosh which the Collector has levied from the plaintiffs in execution of a certificate issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act (Bengal Act I of 1895). The plaintiffs sue for a declaration that the levy of peshkosh is illegal and they further pray for the cancellation of the certificate, for the refund of the amount levied thereunder and for a perpetual injunction restraining the Secretary of State from levying peshkosh in future.2. It appears that there are two estates, known as Jalamutha and Majnamutha in the District of Midnapore, the history of which is adverted to in the judgments of the Courts below.3. At the time of the Permanent Settlement the proprietors refused to accept the settlements offered to them and the estates have ever since been temporarily settled. Their situation renders them liable to inundation and grambheries or village embankments ...
Elahi Baksha Kazi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.258
Richardson, J.1. The appellant was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca and a Jury on charges of abetment of forgery and abetment of the use of forged doouments framed under Sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, read in each case with Section 109 of the same Code. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty on both the charges and the learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced the appellant for each offence to six years' rigorous imprisonment, directing, however, that the sentences should run concurrently. The charges relate to a series of seven bonds. The case for the prosecution is that these seven bonds were forged by or with the connivance of one Sridam in order to take the place of seven genuine bonds. It appears that Sridam and his brothers had borrowed money from Nakari Grope, the father of Mohim Chandra Gope, the complainant in the present ease. It is alleged that on the 3rd Aswin 1316 (September 1909) Sridam executed seven bonds in favour o...
Khetra Mohan Kundu and ors. Vs. Jogendra Chandra Kundu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.7
1. This appeal must be dismissed. We are satisfied that the judgment of the Court below is correct. The respondent is entitled to the costs of this appeal. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur....
Abhilakh Dhelphora Vs. Liladhar Dhalphora
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.549
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case are clearly set out in the judgment of the District Judge, dated the 9th of September 1915, by which he remanded an issue to the Court of first instance. Briefly putthe case is as follows. An occupancy tenant in the year 1900 gave a usufructuary mortgage of his holding to the Zemindar About a year before this suit was brought the Zemindar sold his property rights to Abilakh and Lochan. He also relinquished his sir and khudkasht lands in favour of his Vendees. Among such lands he transferred to the vendees the property which is now in suit. The mortgagor deposited the money due under the mortgage under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act making Sheo Narain, Lochan and Abilakh all parties to his application. This was on the 17th of April 1914. As the money was not taken, he sued on the 2lst of July 1914 for redemption of the mortgage and for damages. The Court-below set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and decreed the plaintiff's...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »