Kolkata Court November 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.
Bodhi Ram and anr. Vs. Musammat Menda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.514
Daniels, A.J.C.1. This second appeal arises oat of a suit by the plaintiff-respondent Musammat Menda, as heir of her father Ram Anand for possession of the share of the latter, which is now in possession of his nephews, the defendants Bodhi Ram and Mahabir. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that they were joint with their uncle, but this has been found against them and is not now in dispute. The two pleas which are pressed in this appeal are (1) that there is in this family a custom excluding daughters from inheritance and (2) that the plaintiff is estopped from bringing the suit.2. In support of the custom the defendants produced certain evidence which was rejected as worthless by the lower Courts and produced also a copy of the waiib-ul-arz in which the custom relied on is stated and which,itis claimed, was wrongly rejected by the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court has no doubt fallen into an error in law in stating that a wajib ul-arz unsupported by other ...
Augrahit Napit Vs. Nabnatannessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal122,49Ind.Cas.798
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant against the decision of the learned District Judge of Birbhum, dated the 12th April 1915, decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff sued for declaration of a right of way. The case is one of those which are common in this country, namely, where the plaintiff and the defendant have both a leasehold interest or the interest of a tenant claiming under a common landlord; and it has been considered and argued in this case as to whether the person who has a lessee's interest or an absolute interest can obtain a right of way and as to whether one tenant can obtain an easement over another tenant of the same landlord. But these matters I do not think are really necessary for our consideration in this case, because the case shows quite clearly that at some time these two properties of the plaintiff and the defendant must have been held together. They have got a common owner and at one time there must have been unity of possession. If ...
Shadaya Chandra Shaha Vs. Kalinath Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.267
Beachcroft, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for ejectment utter six months' notice to quit. The plot of land in question measures some 4 cattahs. The defendant's case was that his tenancy did not consist of only this plot of 4 cattahs but that it was one of 7 1/2 cattahs and that it was his ancestral tenancy. The plaintiffs' case was that a portion of the whole holding, namely, 3 1/2 cattahs, being the northern portion, was the ancestral bari of the defendant and that the defendant's father took a settlement of the 4 cattahs on the south some 20 or 22 years before the suit. The first Court found that there was no evidence as to this settlement and it dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge, after stating that there was no evidence as to certain matters which might affect this question of separate settlement, came to the conclusion that originally the whole of the 7 1/2 cattahs formed one holding, that after many years there had been a division of t...
Mon Mohan Dutta and ors. Vs. Mohamed Hatim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.245
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for joint khas possession in respect of the plaintiffs' share of the land in dispute.2. It appears that the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants held the lands in jote right, the plaintiffs owning the largest share (14 annas and odd). The principal defendants obtained an under raiynt lease for a term of years from the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants. The term of the lease expired in 1910. The plaintiffs purchased the share of the pro forma defendants on the 29th January 1912 and thus became the owners of the 16-annas share. The present suit was instituted for ejectment of the principal defendants on the 30th August 1912.3. The defence of the defendants was that they paid to the pro forma defendants their share of the rent after the expiry of the lease, and could not be ejected.4. The question is whether the acceptance of rent in respect of their share by the pro forma defendants had the effect of converting the defendants into tenants unde...
Fuzlar Rahaman Vs. Abedor Rahaman and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-08-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.495
1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Chittagong and on the apposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. What happened is this: The complainant's brother was undoubtedly murdered--shot dead. The complainant lodged an information before the Police. The record does not show any judicial examination either of the complainant or of any of the witnesses that he wished to produce in support of his complaint. The learned trying: Magistrate came to the conclusion--and in this view he was supported by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-that the case was one in which no Jury would convict the person complained against Therefore, he refused to, summon the accused. In this case he struck far too soon. The case is one of a most serious nature and- it was the duty of the learned Magistrate to examine the complainant and the witnesses he wished to produce in order to see whether he ought to summon the person complained against. If, after havin...
M.N. Mukherjee Vs. Matangi Charan Palit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-01-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.60
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and also on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The complainant complained before the Chief Presidency Magistrate charging the accused-opposite party with cheating and criminal breach of trust. The case Set up by the accused was that he had already been tried and acquitted in Bardwan on a charge which involved the same set of facts and that, therefore, this case ought not to be permitted to go on. The matter, however, had already been once before this Court and the Rule that had been obtained by the accused was discharged on the ground that the accused ought to have taken the plea of his previous acquittal before the trial Court as a defence. It is quite impossible to give effect to that judgment without hearing the case and ascertaining what the facts in this case are; and if it becomes necessary to frame a charge, then the accused would be able to set up the pr...
Nezamaddi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-01-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.839
Walmsley, J.1. The thirteen petitioners were called upon to show cause why they should not be required to give security under the provisions of Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure. They showed cause ; evidence was gone into and they were ordered to give security. They preferred an appeal to the District Magistrate. That appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Magistrate. On application to this Court, they obtained the present Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why on the grounds set out and on an examination of the evidence, the order complained of should not be set aside. After going through the evidence, it appears to me that the order passed by the lower Courts cannot be supported.2. First, with regard to the matter of association, The law. requires that when proceedings are taken against more than one person for a joint trial under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure, proof should be given that they wore associated together in the matter...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›