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.
Srimati Jashoda Dasee Vs. Upendra Nath Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.671
Richardson, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for partition. The properties to which the suit related consisted of moveable and immoveable properties and a partnership business or joint karbar. A. preliminary decree for partition was male by the Subordinate Judge in the trial Court on the 30th November 1914. From that decree the defendant, the opposite party before us, filed an appeal to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal the High Court made an order staying proceedings upon the preliminary decree in so far as it related to the joint karbar, but no further. The trial Court thereupon appointed a Commissioner to effect a partition of the properties other than the karbar. The Commissioner's report was duly submitted and on the 14th April 1915 the matter came before the learned Subordinate Judge and he delivered judgment. The judgment slates that there was no objection by any of the parties to the Commissioner's report and goes on to direct...
Brojendra Nath Mitra Vs. Arman Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.977
1. In this case it appears that the petitioner before us brought a suit for rent against his tenant, a non-occupancy raiyat, and obtained a decree for a sum amounting to some Rs. 80 and odd with an order providing under the provisions of Section 66 (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act that on failure of payment of that amount within 15 days from the date of the decree, the decree for ejectment should be executed. Thereafter the opposite party, one Arman Sheikh, claiming to be an under-raiyat under the non-occupancy raiyat, the judgment-debtor, tendered the amount due in order to prevent the execution of the decree for the ejectment of the non-occupancy raiyat. Having found the opposite party Arman Sheikh to be an under-raiyat the Munsif accepted the deposit, proceeding apparently on the analogy afforded by Sub-section (3) of Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is contended before us that the provisions of Section 170 and subsequent sections of the Bengal Tenancy Act apply only in oases ...
Parsuram Mahajan Vs. Bhal Chandra Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal980(1),44Ind.Cas.719
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Assam Valley Districts, affirming a decision of the Munsif of Barpeta. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 832 which he had paid to the defendant for the purchase of some land of which he was put in possession by the defendant. The plaintiff, however, obtained no registered conveyance for the land. Afterwards a suit was brought by the defendant and the plaintiff lost possession of land. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff brought the present suit to recover the amount of the purchase money which he had paid to the defendant, namely, the sum of Rs. 832. Two questions arise in this appeal. First, it is said that both the lower Courts are wrong in holding that Article 62 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the case. The lower Appellate Court has found that the Article applicable is Article 97 and the Munsif found that the article applicable was Article 95. It is not necessary for us to consider whether, ...
Gahar Mahammed Sarkar and ors. Vs. Pitambar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.868
1. In this case we think that the warrant, the execution of which is said to have been resisted, was illegal. The petitioners should not, therefore, have been convicted under Section 186, Indian Penal Code. We set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fines, if paid, be refunded....
SakhiuddIn Saha and ors. Vs. Sonaulla Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.986
Richardson, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs as mortgagees to enforce their security. Plaintiff No. 12 is one of the two original mortgagees and plaintiffs Nos. 1-11 are the heirs and the successors of the other. The defendants Nos. 1-3 are the mortgagors. Subsequent to the mortgage defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 purchased a portion of the mortgaged property and defendant No. 7 took a puisne mortgage of the remainder. In connection with those transactions, however, it has been found, and cannot now be disputed, that the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 12 led the defendants Nos. 4-7 to believe that the whole property was unencumbered. The position, therefore, is that the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 12 are precluded by the doctrine of estoppel from setting up their rights under the prior mortgage as against those defendants.2. In that state of things the courts below have concurred, in dismissing the suit so far as the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 12 are concerned and in making in favour of t...
Jamila Khatun Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Srimati Mahamud Khatun Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.735
Richardson, J.1. The defendant No. 1 in the suit out of which this appeal arises was the owner in her own right of a moiety share of the taluk to which the suit relates. As to the other moiety share she was the mortgagee in possession under a mortgage by way of conditional sale. As mortgagee, she had undertaken to pay the Government revenue due in respect of the share mortgaged. The taluk, however, fell into arrears and was sold on the 6th June 1897 at a revenue sale and purchased by one Abdul Bari. Abdul Bari sold the taluk in May 1899 to Basirulla and in November 1900 the defendant No. 1 purchased it from Basirulla. In November 1911 the plaintiff in the suit purchased a 4-annas share of the taluk from defendant No. 5, the mortgagor of defendant No. 1. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to redeem the mortgage of defendant No. 1 and both the Courts below have concurred in making a decree in favour of the plaintiff.2. In this appeal it is contended in the first place that defendant N...
The East Indian Railway Co. Vs. Kanak Behary Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.691
1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of the East Indian Railway Company Ltd., calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Burdwan, dated the 11th July 1917, should not be set aside on certain grounds mentioned in the petition. The Rule relates to a consignment of 170 bags of flour and sooji which was delivered short at Burdwan by 7 bags. The decree awards the opposite party damages for the short delivery in accordance with the claim. The ground which has been taken on the petitioner's behalf is that the learned Small Cause Court Judge has misapplied the law inasmuch as be has thrown the burden of proving the cause of the loss or nondelivery on the petitioner.2. It appears that the goods were carried under a risk-note in form B. When goods are so carried, the consignor in consideration of the reduced freight charged, engages to hold the Railway Company harmless and free from all responsibility for any loss, destruction ...
Abdul Hakim Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal464,44Ind.Cas.740
1. This Rule was granted to the petitioner calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the commitment of the petitioner should not be set aside, on the ground that the trial of the accused upon exactly the same facts upon which he was acquitted in a previous trial was bad in law. We asked the Deputy Legal Remembrancer to assist us in this matter and he has shown cause. After hearing the parties we think that the case clearly falls within the purview of Section 403 (4), Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner was tried by the Magistrate under Section 465, Indian Penal Code, and acquitted. He was there...charged on exactly the same facts, namely, with the same forgery of the same document which is now alleged by the prosecution to be a valuable security and the offence with regard to which will fall under Section 467, Indian Penal Code. The illustrations to Section 403 show that a person acquitted or convicted in such circumstances may be charged with and tried for the other off...
PulIn Behary Roy and ors. Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.911
1. The question for consideration in this Rule is whether the rule laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Narain Nursing Doss v. Ram Chunder Jankee Loll 18 C. 86 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S. 58) has been superseded by Rule 4 of Order XXX. The point came before Mr. Justice Fletcher in the case of Bal Kissen Das Daga v. Kanhaya Lal 21 Ind. Cas. 509 : 17 C.L.J. 648. We agree with the view taken by Mr. Justice Fletcher that the rule laid down in the case cited no longer applies in view of the provisions embodied in Rule 4 of Order XXX. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in this way. The name of the added plaintiff Pulin Behary Roy will be struck out of the category of the plaintiffs and he will be dismissed from the suit. The claim will be decreed in full and the decree of the Court below will be modified accordingly....
Firm Bhudar Mal-ram Chandra Marwari Vs. Sew Narayan Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.669
1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdah, by which the Small Cause Court Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 543-1-6. The plaintiff, it appears, is the owner of premises No. 35, Harish Mookerjee Road, and the defend-ant was his tenant and occupier of the said premises. The sum sued for represented payment of consolidated rate made by the plaintiff, and his case was that under the lease executed in favour of the defendant, defendant was liable to pay the whole rate. In the lease that was produced there was a stipulation to the effect that the consolidated rate should be paid in full by the tenant occupier. It has been found in a suit between the parties that that stipulation was fraudulently inserted. That being so, it is obvious that the plaintiff could not recover the sums, he had paid, in full; but under Section 171 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, half of the consol...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »