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.
Mahamad Jalis and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.996
Richardson, J.1. Having read my learned brother's judgment I concur in the conclusion at which he has arrived. The question is merely on which side of the line of demarcation drawn by the authorities the present case falls. That depends on the facts and the facts as found bear out the view which the District Judge has taken on the point of law.2. The appeals are dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing fee in all the appeals at five gold mohurs to be paid in equal shares by the appellants in each case.Beachcroft, J.3. These appeals relate to a large area of riverside land in the Hudrakali Khas Mahal in the Noakhali District. The plaintiffs who are the appellants got settlement of some land, bounded on the north by the river, in 1893. Since then there has been a considerable accretion of land on the north side of the plaintiffs' holding and this land has been dealt with in three separate strips. The strip immediately to the north of the plaintiffs' holding was kept as gopat, the stri...
Narendra Nath Lahiri and ors. Vs. Charu Chandra Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.497
1. This Rule is directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Alipore under the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The litigation is between two rival claimants to the sole Shebaitship of a Thakur of the name of Siddeswari. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiff in the suit brought in his Court was in possession of the Thakur Bari of this Thakur and of the site thereof, and has made an order directing that he do recover possession from the rival claimant. His order is attacked before us on the ground that the Thakur Bari as the residence of the deity or a house of god is open to the public and inasmuch as the defendant has not removed the image of the Thakur, it cannot be said that he has dispossessed the plaintiff from the Thakur within the meaning of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. We are unable to accede to this contention. On this earth Thakurs and other deities must be represented and their interests protected by mundane pers...
Haji Munshi Jillor Rahman Vs. Ebrahim Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1918
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.558
Richardson, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that the appeal is incompetent under the provisions of Section 153, Bengal Tenancy Act. It is urged that the Courts below have decided no question relating to title to land or to any interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto. The plaintiff brought this suit for rent on the footing that he was originally a co-sharer to the extent of 2 annas 3 pies in the estate within the ambit of which the land in question is situated. That share of the estate, it appears, had been sold under Act XI of 1859 for arrears of revenue. But the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to his original share in respect of the land, inasmuch as it is resumed chowkidari chakran land which he says did not pass at the sale. As defendants the plaintiff impleaded not only the tenant from whom the rent was claimed but also the purchaser of the share of the estate sold for arrears of revenue. A controv...
Akkach Mondal Vs. Aminuddi Mullik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.937
1. This Rule is directed against an order made by the District Judge of the 24-Pergannas. The suit in question was a suit upon the mortgage, and the parties having come to a compromise, a decree was made on the 5th June directing that on payment by the defendant into Court of the sum of Rs. 850 on or before the 4th April 1917, the plaintiffs should deliver up to the defendant all documents in their possession relating to the mortgage property and should put the defendant into possession of the property in question. On the 31st March 1917 the defendant paid into Court the sum of Rs. 450 and applied under Order XXXIV, Rule 3, that the time for the payment of the balance should be enlarged. The original Court rejected that application on the ground that the decree passed was a final decree and not a preliminary decree. In appeal the learned District Judge held that the decree was not a final decree, but he declined to enlarge the time for the payment of the balance on the ground that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›