Kolkata Court December 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.
Mahendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Lalit Mohan Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal746,53Ind.Cas.854
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the first defendant against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Hooghly dated the 24th April 1917 affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Howrah. The point raised in the appeal is this: Whether the hatchitta in question was in this case a fresh acknowledgment under the terms of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act; and, if it was not, namely, if it was given after the period of limitation had expired, whether it was a fresh promise to pay within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act? It is obvious that the second question can only arise in the event of the first one being decided in favour of the appellant. Now, what the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found is this: that there was, in fact, an intermediate hatchitta between the original hatchitta and the hatchitta of 1308. That is quite clear and the learned Judge, in my opinion, has held that that; hatchitta was in the ordin...
Ohi Bhusan Adhikari Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal741
Richardson and Shams-ul-Huda, JJ.1. The two petitioners, Ohi Bhusan Adhikari and Ramanath Dey, were assistants in a cloth shop. The case for the prosecution is that they misappropriated cloth, belonging to their employer. They were tried along with two other persons, Ram Gopal and Kali Narain. It was alleged that Kali Narain had dishonestly received stolen cloth sent to him by Ohi Bhusan, and that Ram Gopal had dishonestly received stolen cloth sent to him by Ramanath. No charge of conspiracy was framed against the four men. The petitioners were charged under Section 408 of the Penal Code with the offence of criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant. Kali Narain was charged with abetting the commission of that offence by Ohi Bhusan, and Ram Gopal with abetting its commission by Ramanath. The trial ended in the conviction of all, the accused on the charges framed against them.2. The case then came before the Sessions Judge on appeal. The learned Sessions Judge very properly observe...
Ohi Bhusan Adhikary and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.1002
1. The two petitioners, Ohi Bhusan Adhikary and Ramanath Dey, were assistants in a cloth shop. The case for the prosecution is that they misappropriated cloth belonging to their employer. They were tried along with two other persons, Ram Gopal and Kali Naran. It was alleged that Kali Naran had dishonestly received stolen cloth sent to him by Ohi Bhusan and that Ram Gopal had dishonestly received stolen cloth sent to him by Ramanath. No charge of conspiracy was framed against the four men. The petitioners were charged under Section 408 of the Penal Code with the offence of criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant. Kali Naran was charged with abetting the commission of that offence by Ohi Bhusan and Ram Gopal with abetting its commission by Ramanath. The trial ended in the conviction of all the accused on the charges framed against them.2. The case then came before the Sessions Judge on appeal. The learned Sessions Judge very properly observed that there was no charge of conspiracy...
Pyari Mohan Shaha and anr. Vs. Harish Chandra Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal207,49Ind.Cas.923
1. This is a Rule arising out of proceedings taken under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code. In these proceedings the two petitioners were the first party and the present opposite party Harish Chandra Shaha was the second party. In his judgment the Magistrate sets out the respective claims made by the two parties in this way: 'The first party in their written statement hold that the passage in question is the landlord's Khas patit land and that they have been using it for more than 20 years and as such have acquired the right of easement of necessity over it. That the second party put a door frame with doors on the western end of the passage and thus completely closed it. Second party in his written statement denies the existence of any such passage as mentioned in the proceedings and any right of easement of the first party whatso-.iver over it. He farther states that the land through which the passage is claimed belongs to him. ' The Magistrate rejected the title put forward by the...
Chand Mohatab Bahadur Vs. Sarat Chandra Adhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.909
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by plaintiff appellant to recover arrear of rent due for the years 1313 to--1316 in respect of a certain tenure known as Lot Tajpur and to enforce a charge upon another property (a 4-annas share in Sandhya Bazar) hypothecated by way of security for the rent.2. Both properties have passed out of the hands of the persons who may be spoken of as the original owners and the question for our consideration in this appeal is, whether the hypothecated share of Sandhya Bazar in the hands of the new owners continues liable for the rent of Lot Tajpur. In both cases the transfers, it should be observed, were by private sales.3. The answer to the question propounded depends in the first instance upon the construction of a kabuliyat executed on the 12th December 1891 by the original tenants, Udoy Chand and Pran Krishna Mukherjee. The relevant portions of the kabuliyat run thus: 'If default be made in the payment of rent, you (i. e., the landlord) will real...
Sarada Sundari Dassya Vs. Gangahari Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal738
Fletcher, J.1. The matter raised in the present appeal is this: The plaintiff brought a suit to recover certain amounts that had been awarded to her by some arbitrators on the footing that her deceased husband had an interest in a business. The case went to trial and the present plaintiff succeeded in the first Court to a very considerable extent though not to the whole of the claims. Both parties then appealed to the District Judge and the District Judge allowed the appeal of the defendant to a certain extent and disallowed the appeal of the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff appealed to this Court and the case came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Newbould, and what Mr. Justice Newbould did was this: He reversed the decision of the lower Appellate Court and remanded the case for determination on the merits. That was what Mr. Justice Newbould stated he intended to do. That matter remained unappealed against. It was just as much as an order of any other Court. An order unappealed aga...
Upendra Nath Biswas and ors. Vs. Shib Kumari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal393,52Ind.Cas.616
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage-bond executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for selves, as executors to the estate of their father and as certificated guardians of their four minor brothers, the defendants Nos. 3 to 6. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below against the defendants, and defendants Nos. 3 to 6 have appealed to this Court.2. It is contended on behalf of defendants Nos. 3 to 6 that they were minors at the date of the mortgage bond, that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who had obtained a certificate of guardianship did not obtain sanction of the Court for the mortgage and that, therefore, the mortgage was not binding upon them.3. Before dealing with this contention, we have to consider the powers of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 under the Will, as they executed the mortgage bond not only as certificated guardians of the minors, but also as executors. By the Will it was provided that all the brothers would be 'entitled to what remained after performing the ...
Sarada Sundari Dasya Widow of Sonaton Saha Vs. Gangahari Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.801
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. The matter raised in the present appeal is this: The plaintiff brought a suit to recover certain amounts that had been awarded to her by some arbitrators on the footing that her deceased husband had an interest in a business. The case went to trial and the present plaintiff succeeded in the first Court to a very considerable extent, though not to the whole of the claim. Both parties then appealed to the District Judge and the District Judge allowed the appeal of the defendant to a certain extent and disallowed the appeal of the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed to this Court and the case came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Newbould, and what Mr. Justice Newbould did was this: He reversed the decision of the lower Appellate Court and remanded the case for determination on the merits. That was what Mr. Justice Newbould stated he intended to do. That order remained unappealed against. It was just as much as an order of any other Court. An order unappeale...
Jatindra Nath Bose and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Addya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.375
Teunon, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, on an application which purported to be one made under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. It appears that the appellants before us, who were petitioners in the Court of first instance, along with one Nolini Mohan Bose obtained a decree against certain persons and of the judgment debtors to sale. The sale in execution took place on the 11th June 1911, and on the next following day the appellants before us made an application that they should be substituted in place of their co-decree-holder, Nolini Mohan Bose, on the ground that on the 23rd March 1911 they had purchased his two-third share in the decree that they had jointly obtained. This application was refused on the 1st January 1912. Meanwhile a creditor of the vendor decree-holder, who is now the respondent before us, had on the 15th July 1911 attached Nolini's share in the sale proceeds then lying in the Court of first instance. Against...
Kurshed Ali and ors. Vs. Dinanath Surma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal431,49Ind.Cas.802
Richardson, J.1. In the year 1315 B. S. the defendant No. 1 purchased a share in an estate in the district of Sylhet. The total land revenue payable in respect of this estate amounted between Rs. 2 and Rs. 3 per annum including the local rate. The estate was held by a number of co sharers who had opened separate accounts. In the year 1912, the estate was sold, it is said, for arrears of revenue due in respect of the year 1317 B. S. and the second kist of the year 1318 B. S. The purchaser was the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs are his former co-sharers in the estate and they brought this suit to obtain a recnveyance of their shares from him. The Subordinate Judge in the trial Court gave the plaintiffs a decree. On appeal, the learned District Judge has reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.3. On their behalf it is contended that the learned District Judge has not correctly applied the principle of law applicabl...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »