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.
Madhusudan Gope Vs. Behari Lall Gope and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.881
1. In this case it appears that a suit of a Small Cause Court nature valued at Rs. 140 was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca vested with powers under Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act for trial of suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes up to a value not exceeding Rs. 500. For certain special reasons into which we need not enter the District Judge of Dacca by an order, made under the provisions of Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, transferred the suit for trial to the Court of a Munsif at Dacca vested with Small Cause Court powers, but exercising jurisdiction in such cases only up to a value not exceeding Rs. 100. The suit was tried by the Munsif without objection taken by the plaintiff who is the petitioner before up, and it resulted in a decree for a sum of about Rs. 75.2. The petitioner now comes to this Court and contends that by virtue of the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and by reason of...
Basanta Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Madan Mohun Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal765,46Ind.Cas.282
Richardson, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Dinajpur, dated the 6th April 1915. The appeal turns on the terms of a document described as an ekrarnama or brithinama, under which the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to receive an annual payment of Rs. 150 from the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendant are uterine brothers. The defendant was adopted by the plaintiff's uncle. The uncle died in the year 1291 (1884), leaving his property by Will to the defendant who was at the time a minor, The defendant came of age in 1890; and if; may be accepted, as the Courts below have found, that the plaintiff managed the defendant's estate from the year 1890 to the year 1898. It is not found that the plaintiff in so doing acted at the request of the defendant. Apparently the defendant was living with his natural family and the plaintiff as kartha managed the defendant's property along with other property belo...
Mrs. E.J. Delauney Vs. Pranhari Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.879
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Noakhali, dated the 25th April 1916, The suit is a suit in ejectment and it was brought by the plaintiff against various defendants. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court but decreed in the lower Appellate Court. The appellant before us is the defendant No. 4 and there are also cross-objection by defendant No. 1. The plaintiff traces his title to a lady named Nanda Kumari wife of Sarat Chandra Guha. Sarat Chandra died in 1299 (B.S.) and Nanda Kumari in 1300 (B.S.). The case made is that the land in dispute is included in the land purchased by Nanda Kumari from one Gourhari Gnha under a conveyance, dated the 17th Sralan 1296. On Nanda Kumari's death her rights in this property are said to have devolved upon her son Mohini, and on his death the property is said to have passed to the son of his sister Ganga Monee. That son died an infant and the property is then said to have devolved on his fat...
Anandiram Mandal Vs. Goza Kachori and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.965
1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree complained of should not be set aside and such other order made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The plaintiff who is the petitioner before us brought this suit to recover a sum of Rs. 147 with interest and costs. The plaintiff's allegations were that he advanced a sum of Rs. 120 for marriage expenses to the two defendants, who are brothers; on their executing a bond, by which they agreed in consideration of the sum advanced that one of them should always work for the plaintiff. Interest was agreed on at 8 annas per Rs. 20, i.e. 2 1/2 per cent, per mensem, and the sum of three rupees due on this account each month was not to be paid in cash but was to be liquidated by the services of one or other of the two brothers whom the plaintiff undertook to feed but not to clothe. Both the lower Courts have held that the bond was a slavery bond and not enforceable as being opposed to public polic...
Srimati Ambalika Dasi and ors. Vs. Srimati Arpana Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.402
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal and Appeal No. 59 arise out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs as executors to the estate of one Kali Prosanna Ghosh for the partition of a property called Taraf Katia Nangla and for allotment of a one-third share thereof to the plaintiffs.2. Taraf Katia Nangla, Touzi No. 1086 of the Khulna Collectorate, consists of 8 Mouzahs, one of which bears the name of Katia Nangla. It is situated in Pargana Sahas, and the revenue payable for it was included in the Dowl of Pargana Sahas at the time of the Decennial Settlement, but has all along been treated as a separate property and a separate Touzi number was given to it when the Cess Act came into force. The plaintiff claim title to one-third share of it in the following manner:Pargana Sahas belonged to the Chanchra Raj family, and Raja Baroda Kant (the last Raja) left three sons, Jnanada Kant, Hemoda Kant and Manada Kant. Hemoda Kant Roy, one of the sons, spld his undivided one-third share of Zamindari Mah...
Maharaja Bahadur Sir Prodyat Kumar Tagore, Kt. and anr. Vs. Chundra Mo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal465(2),44Ind.Cas.574
Richardson, J.1. By the kabuliyat of 1287 the tenants agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 37-1-0 per annum subject to a hajat or deduction of Rs. 21-10-0. The rent actually payable was, therefore, Rs. 15-7-0. The kabuliyat contains the following clause: If after the expiry of the term I do not within a year deliver a fresh dowl kabuliyat for the whole amount inclusive of the sum kept in abeyance, I shall pay Rs. 37-1-0, being the full amount of actual rent inclusive of the sum kept in abeyance.' That clause is rather in the nature of a threat that rent at the full nominal rate would be levied in case the tenants did not execute a kabuliyat within a year after the expiry of the term, which was six years. The tenants, however, seem to have continued to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 15-7 a year and no further kabuliyat seems to have been executed till the year 1311. The kabuliyat then executed contains a similar provision as to rent, except that the amount of the deduction was diminished by 4 annas...
Nilmoni De Vs. Soorendra Nath Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal919,46Ind.Cas.648
Richardson, J.1. This Rule relates to a suit which was instituted in the Small Cause Court at Hooghly. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the opposite parties are the plaintiffs. The Rule was issued on the opposite parties to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge, dated the 30th July 1917 should not be set aside.2. It appears that there was a joint Hindu family consisting of three brothers Bepin Lal Behary and Charu governed by the Law of the Dayabhaga. The three brothers are now all dead and the plaintiffs are their heirs and representatives. The suit was brought on a hand-note dated the 22nd July 1912 executed in favour of Charu. The first point taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the Small Cause Court Judge was not entitled to make a decree, as he has done, in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 before they had produced a succession certificate under Section 4 of the succession Certificate Act entitling them as heirs of their predeces...
Sonaulla Sarkar Vs. Srimati Tula Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.203
Richardson, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is the mother and certificated guardian of a minor Muhammadan girl The defendant No. 1, the appellant before us, is the uncle of girl. He is said to be the stepbrother of the defendant No. 2, who is the father of the minor defendant No. 3 Baharulla Mundal. The suit was brought for a declaration that a ceremony purporting to be a ceremony of marriage between the plaintiff's daughter and the defendant No. 3 was not duly performed and was invalid. The Courts below have concurred in making the declaration sought and thig appeal is preferred by the defendant No. 1.2. The question whether the rites required by the Muhammadan Law were duly performed, turns on matters of fact and if the decrees of the Courts below were not otherwise open to objection, their finding on that questionwould be binding on us.3. On behalf of the defendant No. 1, however, it has been contended throughout that the suit is not maintainable by the plaintiff on the ground that ...
Kali Krishna Chowdhury Vs. Tara Prosanna Chongdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal716,50Ind.Cas.304
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Birbhum dated the 20th January 1916 affirming the decision of the Munsif of Bobpur. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain property. He acquired his title at a sale in execution of a mortgage decree. The point that was argued and decided in the Courts below was this: Whether the plaintiff's suit was not barred on the ground that the defendant No. 1 had been in possession of the property adversely to the mortgagor for more than twelve years It is, however, suggested that the possession was equally adverse as against the mortgagee. The facts are not really in dispute. This property originally belonged to one Banwari. Banwari was the husband of the defendant No. 3. Banwari had decrees passed against him. His properties were put up for sale and the present property together with other properties was purchased by the defendant No. 3, his wife, at a sale in execution. I...
Hon'ble Brojendra Kishore Roy Choudhury Vs. Dil Muhmud Sarkar and Ors. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.604
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh dismissing an application for execution on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The decree is dated the 31st March 1908. The first application for execution was on the 20th January 1911, the second on the 22nd August 1914 and the third or the present application on the 6th October 1915. There is no dispute that if the second application was within time, the third application was also within time from the date of the second, and the only question, therefore, that has been argued before us is whether the second application for execution filed on the 22nd August 1914, was or was not barred by the three years' rule of limitation.2. Now, it appears that after the first application for execution had been made, the judgment-debtor put in an objection to the effect that the properties attached and sought to be sold were not transferable, and secondly, that the said properties were his own personal and individua...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »