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.
Srimati Baseemati Debi Vs. Srimati Tarit Basani Dassi and Chedi Dosadh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.416
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Hoogly, dated the 10th March 1916. The order is an order of remand made in a suit brought by the plaintiff to establish her right of way over certain plots of land belonging to the defendant Srimati Baseemati Debi, the appellant before us. In the trial cases the suit was treated by the learned Munsif and by the parties as a suit to establish an easement over the land in the nature of a right of way acquired by prescription under the provisions of Section 26 of the Indian Limitation Act or in the nature of a. right of way of necessity. In the Trial Court the plaintiff failed and the suit was dismissed. When the case came before the Court below, the learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the Munsif in holding that on the evidence on the record the plaintiff had failed to prove that she was entitled to a right of way either on the basis of prescription or on the basis of necessity. Looking at the pleadings and ...
Jogendra Kumar Ghose and ors. Vs. Ananda Chandra Mozumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.21
1. In S.A. No. 1710 of 1916. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Noakhali, dated the 21st March 1914, confirming the decree of the Munsif of Lakhipur, dated the 27th April 1913. The suit is a suit for rent at an enhanced rate on the footing that the tenants, the defendants, are in possession of an area in excess of that for which rent had previously been paid. The suit was instituted on the 15th April 1912. The first date for hearing was the 3rd July 1912. But thereafter there were a number of adjournments and on the 10th August 1912 the parties were directed to file their documents within seven days and the kabuliyat to which this appeal relates was in fact filed by the plaintiff on the 9th September 1912. The order then made was that the documents should be kept on the record. Further proceedings followed, including a local enquiry by an Amin. The case did not come on for hearing till the 21st April 1913. Then in the course of the ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Kamal Krishna Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.222
1. This appeal is preferred by the Secretary of State from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 23rd May 1914, confirming the decree of the Munsif of Chittagong, dated the 8th April 1913. The Secretary of State is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff is the holder of a temporary tenure within a Noabad estate belonging to the Government. The plaintiff purchased the tenure at a sale for arrears of revenue. The tenure was created in the year 1896 and it was held under a kabuliyat of that year. One of the terms of the contract is that diluvion or no diluvion the liability of the tenant to the full rent payable should remain. The suit was brought by the plaintiff on the ground that more than one-half of the land of the tenure had been diluviated and that he was entitled to abatement under Section 52, Bengal Tenancy Act. The Courts below have decided in his favour and made a decree allowing him a proportionate deduction of the rent. For the Secretary ...
Rupa Thakurani and anr., Vs. Kumudnath Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.116
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Julpaiguri, dismissing an appeal from the decree of the Munsif of Jalpaiguri on the ground that the appeal had been filed out of time. The Munsif's decree in the suit is dated the 23rd December 1913. It appears that on the 4th February 1914 the appeal from the Munsif's decree was filed in the Court of the District Judge of Dinajpur and Julpaiguri. The appeal was admitted in that Court and a date was fixed for the hearing. Then the question seems to have been raised whether under the rules the appeal should have been filed in the Court of the District Judge or in the Subordinate Judge's Court. Time was taken to consider that question and on the 1st May 1914, the District Judge having in the meantime informed himself of the rule in force, the appeal was returned to be presented in the proper Court, the Court of the Subordinate Judge. On the same day the appeal was filed in that Court. It has been ...
Srimati Sushilabala Dasi Vs. Anukul Chandra Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal506,44Ind.Cas.166
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the objector from the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Hooghly dated the 7th October 1915. The proceedings out of which the present appeal arises related to an application by the respondents for the grant of Letters of Administration with; a copy of the Will annexed to the estate of one Kali Churn Bhur, who died at Chandernagar--the territory of the French Republic--on the 2nd January 1914. The application was for a grant having regard to the provisions of Section 5 of the Probate and Administration Act. Kali Churn Bhur died, as I have stated, on the 2nd January 1914. On the 1st January 1914, it appears from the proceedings of the Tribunal of first instance at Chandernagar that Kali Churn Bhur had sent for a notary and in his presence and in the presence of six witnesses had made what is called in the French Code a mystic Will. On the 15th January 1914, Indubhushan De, a general legatee under the Will, applied to the Court of firs...
Haripada Sadhukhan Vs. Anath Nath Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.211
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 2 against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Howrah dated the 6th May 1915. The action was brought by the plaintiff for the purpose of enforcing an equitable mortgage on certain moveable and immoveable properties comprised in an indenture of conveyance executed in favour of the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 2 is an attaching creditor of the defendant No. 1, and he Mays that the property in suit is not subject to any equitable mortgage as stated by the plaintiff. The learned Judge in the Court below decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and hence the present appeal.2. The learned Judge in the Court below has found that the deposit as mentioned by the plaintiff was, in fact, made. It was evidenced by a letter, dated the 20th November 1913, signed by the first defendant and it is not denied that the deposit did, in fact, take place within the limit of the Presidency town. Therefore, as regards the immoveable pr...
Monmotho Nath Laha and ors. Vs. Annoda Prosad Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.567
Richardson, J.1. The present appeal is preferred from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 28th May 1915, affirming the decree of the Munsif of Bardwan, dated the 30th March 1914. The plaintiffs in the suit, who are the appellants before us, are the shebaits of a certain idol and they sue the defendants to recover possession of certain debutter property held by them under colour of a mokarari lease granted by the father of the plaintiffs, the previous shebait, in the year 1876. The sole question which arises is whether the suit, which was instituted on the 14th February 1913, is barred by the provision of Article 134 of the Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908. By that Article a suit to recover possession of immoveable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust or mortgage and afterwards transferred by the trustee or mortgagee for valuable consideration must be brought within 12 years of the date of the transfer. Prima facie the present suit fal...
Kherode Behari Gossami Vs. Raja Narendra Lal Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1918
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.310
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal from the judgment of Greaves, J., delivered on the 20th February 1917, whereby be dismissed the suit with costs.2. The facts are set out fully at pages 105, 106 and in the first paragraph of page 107 of the paper-book; they depend upon documents and there is no dispute about them.3. With regard to the third paragraph on page 107, the learned Judge's finding that he had no evidence as to the authority of P. C. Mitter is contested.4. It was argued that the evidence of the plaintiff shewed that the 2nd defendant and an officer of the Raja on a certain occasion told him that the Raja was going to take the liablity of re payment to the plaintiff and asked, if be was. agreeable: that the plaintiff said if the Raja took the liability he was agreeable to advance the money; and it was urged that but for this representation the plaintiff would not have advanced the money. It is to be noted first that no date was given for this conversatio...
Nogendra Lal Chowdhury Vs. Fani Bhusan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal835,44Ind.Cas.265
Richardson, J.1. The only question to which we need address ourselves in this appeal is the question of limitation. In the course of certain execution proceedings the property now in dispute was attached. The present plaintiff preferred a claim to the property under Order XXI, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure. The claim was rejected and he brought this suit to establish his title to the property and for consequential reliefs. It is not disputed that if the order made in the execution proceedings rejecting the claim was an order within the scope of Order XXI, rule, 63, the present suit is a suit of the nature contemplated by that rule and is governed as to limitation by Article 11 of the Limitation Act of 1908. The period of limitation prescribed in such a suit is one year from the date of the adverse order in the claim case. Here the suit was instituted more than a year after the claim was rejected. The defend-ant No. 1 pleaded, therefore, that the suit was out of time. The contention ...
Sri Sri Brindaban Chandra Jiew by His Present Manager Raghunath Banerj ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal176,50Ind.Cas.84
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises relates to a Chur called Chur Kristobati, which appears to have formed to the permanently settled estate of the same name and which belongs to Brindaban Chandra Jiew Thakur, the plaintiff-appellant in this case.2. The Chur was resumed by Government and settled with the Thakur from the year 1848 to 1912 upon assessment of revenue made by Government from time to time. The last of these settlements was for the period from April 1902 to 31st March 1912. There was a provision in the Pattah to the effect that the settlement-holder, who was the Manager of the Thakur, and his legal representatives would have the right to take a fresh settlement on the expiration of the previous term of settlement subject to the condition of payment of such Government revenue as might be then assessed and that, should he fail to take settlement on condition of payment of such Government revenue as might be assessed at the time, he would be entitled ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »