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.
BasiruddIn Thanadar Vs. Mokima Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.915
Richardson, J.1. This appeal is preferred from an order of the District Judge of Rungpur, dated the 16th April 1917. For the present purpose the order must be treated as an order made under Section 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, refusing an application made by certain creditors of the insolvent that two conveyances executed by him within two years of the date on which he was so adjudged should be annulled. The conveyances in question were in favour of his two wives Nabnat Bibi and Mokima Bibi and are both dated the 11th January 1915. They are each in the nature of a hiba-bil-ewaz. In other words, they purport to have been executed in consideration of the dower debts which the insolvent owed to his wives respectively. In January 1915, the insolvent had been married to Nabnat for about 11 years and to Mokima for about 5 years. The dower promised in the case of Nabnat is said to have been Rs. 1,500 and in the case of Mokima, whose father was in better circumstances than the father o...
Durga Prasad Jana Vs. Dinabandhu Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.279
Fletcher, J.In No 330 of 1914.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of the 1st Court at Midnapur. The plaintiff brought the suit for partition of properties alleged to be joint family properties.2. Eight issues were framed in the lower Court, all of which except as to a property in the Sunderbans to which appeal No. 216 of 1914 relates the learned Judge decided in favour of the plaintiffs.3. On the hearing of the present appeal the first point argued was that raised by issue No. 7 in the Court below.4. It appears that two days before the institution of the suit the parties entered into an agreement to refer the matter to arbitration. The appellant, therefore, alleges that the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act. There is no allegation in the written statement that the plaintiff refused to perform the contract to refer to arbitration, nor was any evidence given to prove such a refusal.5....
Harendra Chandra Lahiri Vs. Basanta Kumar Maitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1918
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.991
Fletcher, J 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rungpur, dated the 23rd November 1914. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint on establishment of title and also for mesne profits. The learned Judge of the Court below decreed the suit as regards the recovery of possession on establishment of title but refused to award mesne profits. The main portion of the case turns on the construction to be placed upon the Will of one Harish Chunder Lahiri, which was dated the 23rd Pous 1306 corresponding with 6th January 1900. Before proceeding to consider the terms of the Will, it is necessary to state shortly the relationship that Harish Chander had with the parties to this suit. Harish Chander was the son of one Iswar. Chander Lahiri. Iswar Chander had been dead many years apparently and we are not concerned with him at all. Besides Harish Chander, Iswar Chander had three other...
Abdul Karim Vs. Meherunessa Daughter of Bakter Bhuya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1043,45Ind.Cas.33
1. The appeal and the Rule before us relate to the same matter. In my opinion no appeal lies in the present case and the matter must be dealt with under the Rule.2. The whole question is covered by the simple proposition that no one can be bound by a compromise to which he was not a party. The compromise in the present case related to an execution sale which had taken place in the course of executing a decree for rent obtained by the landlord of a raiyaii holding against his tenant. The holding was sold and was purchased by the auction-purchaser for Rs. 400. The landlord satisfied himself out of the money and the balance Rs. 353 and odd was taken by one of the judgment-debtors as the representative of the rest. Then the mortgagee, to whom the holding had previously been mortgaged and who had obtained a decree on the mortgage and had in execution of that decree purchased the holding, though he had never received recognition from the landlord, came in and applied to have the sale set asi...
Gopi Nath Mondal Vs. Ashutosh Ghose, Receiver to the Estate of Nilrata ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal498,44Ind.Cas.1003
1. In this case it appears that four brothers mortgaged their share in certain properties to one Rai N. N. Sahu Bahadur. On the 4th day of December 1911 they and a fifth brother, a minor represented by his duly appointed guardian the eldest of the four adult brothers, executed a second mortgage of the same properties in favour of one Nripendra Nath Sahu. The four adult brothers next executed a third mortgage in favour of one Gopi Nath Mondal.2. On the 10th of May 1912 the four adult brothers were adjudicated insolvent and on the 27th of June of that year a Receiver of their properties was appointed.3. It thus became necessary to effect a partition between the five brothers, and by the decree in the partition suit dated 4th January 1913 the three properties now in question were allotted to the four adult brothers. Next followed a sale by the Receiver at the instance of the 1st mortgagee on the 22nd and 23rd April 1913. The properties were sold free of incumbrances and, with a certain am...
Gajadhar Prasad Singh and anr. Vs. Sheo Nandan Prosad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.115
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal has bean preferred by the defendants 2nd party under the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs asking for a declaration of their right to joint possession with the defendants 2nd party of 41 bighas and 4 dhurs of land, on the allegation that the same formed part of the khudkasht lands of the maliks. Alternatively the plaintiffs asked for a partition of such lands.3. The defendants 2nd party, who alone contested the suit, denied that the land in suit was khudkasht and alleged that the same was held by two tenants, Awadh Behari and Isri Prasad. The learned Subordinate Judge at the trial decided the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Against that, decision the defendants 2nd party preferred an appeal to this Court. The appeal came on for hearing before Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.4. As regards the portion of the land in suit alleged to be held by Isri Singh, the learned judges were both of opinion that the j...
Joyenullah Bepari (Mandal) and Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.158
1. These are two Rules granted to Joyenullah Bepari who was convicted in two trials under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced in each case to two months' rigorous imprisonment. The Magistrate directed that the sentence in the second case was to run concurrently with the sentence in the first. We may mention that the Magistrate had no power to make any such order, the trials being separate trials for two distinct offences. The evidence, however, against the accused in both cases seems to be so unsatisfactory that it is impossible to uphold the conviction and sentences. In the first case the petitioner is charged with being in possession of certain keys knowing them to be stolen. It may be that the keys were stolen on 28th April as stated. It may be also that these keys were found in the house of this accused on the 4th August following. That, however, would not be sufficient to prove a dishonest intention on the part of the accused. There is no ground for presumption under Sec...
Abdur Rahaman and anr. Vs. Amir Sharif and ors. and Amir Ali Miya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.229
Richardson, J.1. A preliminary point is taken in this appeal that no appeal lies under Section 102, Code of Civil Procedure. We are of opinion that this objection is good and that the appeal must be dismissed.2. The appellant, however, succeeded in obtaining a Rule from this Court which raises the same question as is raised in the appeal. The question turns on the provision contained in Rule 9 of Order XXXVIII, Code of Civil Procedure. The rule runs as follows: 'Where an order is made for attachment before judgment, the Court shall order the attachment to be withdrawn when the defendant furnishes the security required together with security for the costs of the attachment or when the suit is dismissed.' It appears that on the 19th September 1911. certain property belonging to the defendant in the suit out of which these proceedings arise was attached before judgment. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the 20th November 1911. On appeal the suit was decreed on the 28th January ...
Nawab Syed Mazaffar Ali Khan, President of the Endowed Committee of Ba ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.1
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The only question involved in the appeal is, what was the market value of certain land compulsorily acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.3. The land acquired is a hill in the Sonthal Perganas which is called Bahadurpur and Belpahari. It was acquired in connection with the construction of the Lower Ganges Bridge. The value of the land as a quarry was the subject-matter of the enquiry in the proceedings out of which this appeal arises and also was the basis of the argument before us.4. The declaration is dated the 9th August 1909.5. The Collector awarded Rs. 976-6-0 in respect of the land the subject of the present appeal. The District Judge increased this amount to Rs. 3,125.6. On appeal to this Court the appeal came to be heard by Digambar Chatterjee and Beachcroft, JJ. They were divided in their opinion, Digambar Chatterjee, J. was of opinion that the amount awarded by the District Ju...
OhiduddIn Choudhury and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.122
1. In this case an objection is taken on behalf of the three accused who have been bound down under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, that the proceedings before the Trying Magistrate were without jurisdiction. It appears that the breach of the peace apprehended was within the Sub-Division of Chandpur, whereas the accused reside in the Sudder Division. It was, necessary, therefore, under Section 107 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, to go before the District Magistrate for commencement of the proceedings. The District Magistrate, instead of drawing up proceedings and sending them to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, said that he sanctioned' proceedings and sent the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The intention of the District Magistrate is clear, but he expressed himself loosely and not strictly in accordance with the section. We do not think, however, that that would deprive the Trying Magistrate of jurisdiction in the case. It is a mere irregularity in expression which could not ...