Kolkata Court March 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.
Khitish Chandra Banerjee and ors. Vs. Thakomani Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal623,46Ind.Cas.458
Richardson, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are Thakomani Debi, the widow, and Umamoyee Debi, the daughter of Durgadas Chatterjee deceased. They seek to recover a six-annas share of a certain tank which originally belonged in its entirety to Durgadas. It appears that in the year 1886 Durgadas executed a deed of gift in respect of a three annas share of the tank in favour of the plaintiff Umamoyee and another daughter since deceased. In the year 1890 Durgadas again executed a deed of gift of another three annas share of the tank in favour of Thakomani. In the same year 1890 he died leaving a Will by which he appointed his son Annoda his executor. On the 15th October 1892 Annoda as executor mortgaged certain properties, not including the tank, in favour of the father of the defendants. In 1899 the father of the defendants obtained a decree on the mortgage in a suit to which Annoda in his capacity as executor and Thakomani were made parties. In execution of that decree the mortgaged prop...
Surendra Nath Saha Vs. Bola Ram Poddar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1095,45Ind.Cas.699
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned District Judge of the 21 Perganas, dated the 11th August 1917, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. The appeal arises in this manner. The appellant along with one Keshab and others had a decree for money obtained against them on the 12th June 1915, and their property duly attached. Then Keshab died. On the 24th August 1915, Keshab's widow applied to set aside the ex parte decree which had been obtained on the 12th June 1915. That application was dismissed for default en the 11th March 1916. On the 20th April 1916, execution was applied for. That was followed by notices and proper publication of the sale proclamation. Eventually, on two dates, namely, on-the 20th and the 21st November 1916, the property attached was sold to a stranger, the respondent to the present appeal. Thereupon1, all the judgment debtors including the widow of Keshab applied to the Court of the Subordinate Judge to set aside...
Rudra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Joy Chand Kaibartna (Das) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.280
1. In this case, the plaintiffs appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sylhet, dated the 23rd December 1915, and the defendants have preferred a cross-appeal. It will be convenient in the view we take of the case to deal with the cross-appeal first. The plaintiffs are co owners or part owners of a certain bil. The defendants have a lease from some of the other co-owners. That is a fact found. The defendants have caught fish from that bil and apparently have made a profit by the sale thereof. The plaintiffs do not allege that they have been excluded from exercising their rights, but they want to have by way of damages a portion of the value realized by the defendants by the sale of the fish that they have caught. The plaintiffs cannot have any such right. It has not been shown that when they had gone there for fishing they had been prevented by the defendants or that they could not get ample fish in the bil to satisfy their right of fishery. An action like this ...
DarpanaraIn Sarkar and ors. Vs. Girish Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.351
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The sole question which arises is whether the plaintiffs are tenure holders or raiyats. The plaintiffs claim to be raiyats and the important point is this, that if they are raiyats and the defendants are under-raiyats, the plaintiffs are entitled under the provisions of Section 66, Bengal Tenancy Act, to a decree for ejectment subject to the provisions of the section in addition to a decree for arrears of rent. The case for the defendants is that the plaintiffs are tenure-holders.2. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiffs are in fact tenure-holders, and this is a finding with which in second appeal we ought not to interfere except on the ground of some clear mistake on point of law. The trial Court, having first found that the plaintiffs were tenure-holders, dismissed the suit on the footing that the land in respect of which the rent is claimed was not the subject of a separate tenancy but formed part of a larger are...
Mohim Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. Maharaja Sir Pradyat Kumar Tagore and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.651
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the learned Special Judge of Mymensingh, dated the 22nd May 1915, reversing the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of the same place. The proceedings out of which this appeal arises were instituted under the provisions of Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In the Record of Rights finally published under Section 103B of the same Act, there was an entry that the defendants held a permanent tenure subject only to the liability to have the rent enhanced. Therefore, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit under the provisions of Section 106. The Srst Court dismissed the suit, holding that the tenure was permanent, not subject to enhancement of rent. On appeal, the learned Special Judge has reversed that finding. The way that the learned Judge bases his judgment is this. First of all, the learned Judge holds that, apart from certain Dowl Kabuliyats, the evidence does not establish that the defendants ...
In Re: Amulyadhan Addy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal132,50Ind.Cas.307
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is an application that the nomination of Norman Ritchie Luke be declared invalid. The nomination paper in this case contains the particulars required under Rule 2, Schedule V of the Municipal rules for the conduct of elections. The grounds upon which the application is made are as follows: that although there are 18 persons who appear as voters approving of the nomination, yet six of them are not entitled to be registered as voters, their names not having been in the assessment book; that five of them Live in flats and are therefore not entitled under Section 37, Sub-clause 2(e) of the Calcutta Municipal Act; that one Tosh and one Pick-ford, who live in the same house, are not entitled to be reckoned as voters inasmuch as they do not pay the rent of the premises where they live, which is paid by Messrs. Begg Dunlop & Co. to whom the premises belong. Objections were taken by the applicant to the inclusion of the names of these persons in the election roll, but that ...
Giridhari Lal Serowgi Vs. Syed Altaf Ali Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.564
1. This appeal is against an order settling the terms of a sale proclamation to be issued with a view to the sale of certain properties in execution of a decree obtained on a mortgage. The appellant before us was the judgment-debtor No. 2 in that decree inasmuch as at the time when the suit was brought and the decree was obtained, he held the position of a puisne mortgagee. It appears that there were certain prior mortgagees known as the Roys. The fact that the sale is to take place subject to the incumbrance of the Roys, has been set out we are informed in the sale proclamation. But the appellant before us says that since the decree he has acquired the interest of the Roys and he desires that that fact should also be noted in the sale proclamation. It has also been stated before as that since the decree under execution, he has also been appointed by this Court the Receiver in a suit brought by the mortgagors against the Roys, and he has further; it is stated, acquired the interest of ...
Hon'ble Sir Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi Bahadur Vs. Kumar Sarabind ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal672,45Ind.Cas.408
Richardson, J.1. The plaintiff in the an is the appellant in this appeal. The dispute between the parties relates to the boundary between two estates, that on the west belonging to the plaintiff and that on the east belonging to the defendants. In the trial Court, the learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the bulk of the lands belonged to the plaintiff's esiate. The Subordinate Judge made a decree in accordance with that finding. On appeal the learned District Judge took a different view and dismissed the suit.2. The principal contention urged before us by Sir Rash Behary Ghose on behalf of the plaintiff, and the only contention with which we are called upon to deal, is that the learned District Judge erred in respect of the mode in which he dealt with the burden of proof. It appfars that on behalf of the plaintiff the District Judge was referred to the principle laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Lukhi Narain Jagadeb v. Jod...
Narendra Nath Mitter Vs. Radha Charan Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal637,(1919)ILR46Cal119
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Chaudhuri. The matter arose in connection with the candidature of Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter for the forthcoming Municipal Election in Calcutta. This gentleman was a candidate for the Corporation, and he sent in certain documents to the Chairman of the Corporation in connection with his nomination. An objection was taken to these documents as not constituting a valid nomination.2. The Chairman decided in favour of Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter. A Rule was obtained under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act and, upon the hearing of, that Rule the learned Judge made it absolute with the result that he overruled the decision at which the Chairman of the Corporation had arrived.3. Now, the rule which relates to this matter is one of the rules relating to the conduct of elections which were made in pursuance of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1899. This is Rule 2 and it runs as fol...
Narendra Nath Mitter Vs. Rai Radha Charan Pal Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.314
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Chaudhri. The matter arose in connection with the candidature of Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter for the forthcoming Municipal Election in Calcutta. This gentleman was a candidate for the Corporation, and he sent in certain documents to the Chairman of the Corporation in connection with his nomination. An objection was taken to these documents as not constituting a valid nomination.2. The Chairman decided in favour of Mr. Narendra Nath Mitter. A Rule was obtained under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act; and, upon the hearing of that Rule the learned Judge made it absolute, with the result that he overruled the decision at which the Chairman of the Corporation had arrived.3. Now, the Rule which relates to this matter is one of the rules relating to the conduct of elections which were made in pursuance of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1899. This is Rule 2, and it r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »