Kolkata Court February 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.
Jotindra Kumar Dass Vs. Gagan Chandra Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal677(1),45Ind.Cas.903
1. This Rule is directed against an order by which the Court of Small Causes of Dacca has refused the application for execution of a certain decree on the ground that the decree is timebarred. The decree is dated the 9th May 1913. The decree-holder, who is the petitioner before us, alleges that the judgment-debtor made a payment to him of Rs. 25 on the 10th June 1914, and a farther payment of Rs. 50 on the 20th November 1914. He also alleges two earlier payments which for the purposes of this Rule we may disregard. On the 6th June 1917 he made an application to the Court for certifying the above payments. On the 9th June 1917 he next applied for execution of his decree. Without taking evidence in the matter the learned Subordinate Judge held that the payments of the 10th June 1914 and 20th November 1914 to which we have referred, taken with the decree-holder's application of tb.e 6th (June, 1917, were not sufficient to save limitation. We are unable to hold that on the facts before him...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Mozam Molla and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.687
1. In this case the accused persons were convicted by a Deputy Magistrate of offences under Section 353 and 147, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced Israil to eight months' and the rest to six months' rigorous imprisonment each. The accused appealed to the Sessions Judge who acquitted them on a question of law. He held that the ruling in the case of Bisu Haldar v. Emperor 11 C.W.N. 836 : 6 C.L.J. 127 : 6 Cr.L.J. 38 was conclusive in this case. The facts, he said, were identical. Against that acquittal the Government have appealed. It appears clear that the facts of the two cases are not identical. A perusal of the judgment in the case of Bisu Haldar v. Emperor 11 C.W.N. 836 : 6 C.L.J. 127 : 6 Cr.L.J. 38 shows that not only was the warrant in that case issued under Section 96, Criminal Procedure Code, but that the terms of the warrant indicated that it was issued under that section. In [this case there being no prescribed form of warrant under Section 100, the Magistrate who issued it adap...
BepIn Behari Sen Vs. Krishna Behari Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.246
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings.2. It appears that in a suit for partition brought by the present respondent under a decree made on an arbitration awarded on the 12th March 1906, the present appellant Bepin Behari Sen and his mother Thakurani Dasi Debi each became entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,130 from the present respondent Krishna Behari Sen. Against this decree Bepin Behari and Thakurani Dasi appealed and under the decree of this Court dismissing their appeal on the 8th July 1908 they became liable jointly and severally in a sum of Rs. 506 by way of costs to Krishna Behari. Thereafter they applied for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, and by the order dismissing that application on the 6th April 1909 they were directed to pay further costs to the extent of Rs. 80.3. In 1913 they next brought a suit to have the decree on the award on which it was based set aside; that suit was finally dismissed in April 1915.4. Meanwhile the respondent Krishna Behari ...
Sheik BasiruddIn Vs. Sheik Sadhu Tanti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.690
Richardson, J.1. The petitioner in this Rule brought a suit against the opposite party and others. In that suit a petition of compromise was filed, to which the opposite party was apparently a party. Accordingly a consent decree was made founded on the petition. When the petitioner took steps to execute the decree, the opposite party applied to the trial Court to set aside the decree on the ground that as against him it was an ex parte decree. The learned Munsif on the merits refused the application. The opposite party then appealed to the District Judge, who took a different view of the facts and set aside the decree by hia order of the 4th January 1918. That order is the subject-matter of this Rule. It is contended that the proceedings were not proceedings under Order IX, Rule 13, as they purport to be and that the appeal was incompetent.2. Now it is not disputed that it was open to the opposite party to apply to the trial Court to set t aside the compromise decree on the ground that...
Gendu Nasya and ors. Vs. Sadi Bania Alias Sadi Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.983
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. He brought the suit for a declaration that a certain decree which had been obtained against him was fraudulent and of no effect. The plaintiff's case appears to be that summons in the suit in which the decree was made was not served on him and that the suit was based upon a forged document. In the Trial Court the learned Munsif found in his favour and made a decree accordingly. In the Court of Appeal below the learned District Judge has. dismissed the suit.2. As to the non-service of summons, if the plaintiff had been able to establish that the usual processes had been suppressed, no doubt, that would have furnished some solid foundation for the suit. The learned District Judge, however, has found that the summonses were duly served in the usual course. That part of the case, therefore, goes.3. There remains the case as to forgery. In view of the authorities on the subject, the judgment of the District Judge may be in some respects open to ...
Emperor Vs. Asgar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.500
1. In this case, five accused persons Asgar Mandal, Nasir Pramanik, Mahir Pramanik, Masir and Rahim Baksh were put on their trial before the Sessions Judge of Rajshahye and a Jury on charges under Sections 147, 148, 326, 307, 326/109 and 326/149, Indian Penal Code. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of 'not guilty' on all the charges. As the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code, turned upon the question of possession of the land where the occurrence took place and the evidence on that point was conflicting, the learned Judge accepted the verdict with regard to those charges and acquitted all the accused of offences under Sections 147, 148 and 149. This had the effect of acquitting Masir and Rahim Baksh altogether. The learned Judge was of opinion that the verdict on the charges under Sections 326, 307 and 326/109 was erroneous. He has accordingly referred the case of the three accused Asgar Mandal, Nasir Pramanik and Mahir Pramanik to this Court for decision un...
Khetra Nath Mandal and ors. Vs. Mahomed Alla Rakha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal616,45Ind.Cas.921
Richardson, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the defendants in a suit in ejectment. The suit relates to a tank claimed by the plaintiffs as appertaining to an estate No. 718 of the Birbhnm Collectorate, their 'title to which as patmdars has now been conclusively established. As to the question of limitation, there are materials on the record to support the District Judge's finding that the plaintiffs' predeoessor-in; interest was in possession of the tank within 12 years of the institution of the suit. That finding, therefore, is also conclusive.2. The only question for our consideration is whether the learned District Judge's further finding that this disputed tank does in fact appertain to Estate No. 718 does or does not rest on evidence which is admissible in law.3. It is common ground that in the year 1852 there was a partition of the lands common to four revenue paying estates of which the present Estate No. 718 was one. The partition was carried out, as the parties also ag...
Kandarpa Naran Mandal Vs. Sridhar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.518
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in a suit to enforce a mortgage security. The parties to the suit are not the original mortgagor and the original mortgagee. They are persons to whom the mortgage and the equity of redemption have respectively been transferred. The Courts below have concurred in dismissing the suit on the ground that it is not maintainable in its present form. Whatever may be said on that subject, on which we express no opinion, a preliminary point has been taken before us on behalf of the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation. The contention is that inasmuch as the mortgage-bond was executed by the respondent in respect of a loan, not of money but of paddy, Article 132 of the Limitation Act has no application and the suit is governed either by Article 116 or Article 120. This contention is founded on the ruling of the late Chief Justice Sir Lawrence Jenkins and Mr. Justice Holmwood in the case of Rash Bihari Das v. Kunjabihari Patra 37 Ind. Cas. ...
Lalu Sardar and ors. Vs. Ohedali Mrioha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1035(1),45Ind.Cas.15
1. This Rule is directed against a decree made by the Small Cause Court of Barisal The plaintiff brought his suit to recover the value of paddy and his claim has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 15. His allegations in the plaint were tbat this paddy being in his possession the defendant had forcibly, wrongfully and maliciously cut and taken it away. On these allegations it is clear that under the Small Causes Courts Act, Second Schedule, Article 35, Clause (ii), introduced into the Act by the Amending Act VI of 1914, the plaintiff's suit was one not triable by a Court of Small Causes. We, therefore, set aside the decree against which this Rule is directed and return the case to the Small Cause Court Judge in order that he may return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation in the proper Court.2. Under all the circumstances we make no order as to costs....
Rani Anhayeswari Debi Vs. Hatu Shiekh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1065(2),45Ind.Cas.645
1. This Rule is directed against an order by which the Subordinate Judge of the Assam Valley Districts in an appeal to his Court has directed the taking by the Court of first instance an additional evidence.2. It appears that the suit in question, which was one for the recovery of damages for the appropriation of a jack tree, was originally instituted in the Court of the Munsif at Goalpara, the said Munsif being invested under Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, with the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes for the trial of suits cognizable by such Courts up to the value not exceeding Rs. 100. The suit was instituted on what is spoken of as the Small Cause Court side of his Court on the 1st August. When the written statement of the defendants-tenants was filed, it appeared to the learned Munsif that the case was one which involved the question of custom and title to immoveable property. He thereupon on the 14th September 1914 made the followin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »