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.
Rani Mina Kumari Saheba Vs. Ichamoyee Chowdhurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.747
1. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit brought to recover actual possession of an occupancy holding in the village of Basanta of which he is the proprietor. His case is that the holding is non-transferable and that the defendants, who are in possession as purchasers from the original tenant, are mere trespassers. Of the defences raised we are now concerned only with the defence that occupancy holdings in the village are transferable by custom without the landlord's consent. The written statement says nothing about the payment of nazar, customary or otherwise. There is no plea that nazar has in fact been piid. Nor is there any reference to nazar in the issue framsd upon this question. The issue is merely: 'Are the disputed holdings transferable by local custom or usage?' At the trial, however, evidence relating to the payment of nazar has been given and both the Courts below have found in favour of a custom of transferability involving in some way, which is not clearly defined, the...
Rasik Chandra Mukhopadhya Vs. Shyama Kumar Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.136
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge of Backergunge, dated the 24th August 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Patuakhali. The Court of Wards acting on behalf of a disqualified proprietor obtained a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery-Act (I B.C.) of 1895 in respect of arrears of rent of a Howla, The tenure was thereupon brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff. The sale was confirmed and it appears that, when the property was advertised for sale, there were, in fact, proceedings pending under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for enhancement of rent on the ground of excess in area. The rent in the proclamation was stated to be Rs. 64. The proclamation of sale, although it has not been given in evidence in this case, apparently did not state that there were proceedings pending to enhance the rent. The rent was shortly after the sale to the plaintiff raised from Rs. 64 to Rs. 270; and, in de...
iswar Chandra Kapali Vs. Sheikh Arjan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.725
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against the decision of the learned District Judge of Mymensingh, dated the 30th April 1915. The appeal is preferred against, an order refusing to admit an appeal out of time. It is said that it is a decree under the terms of the Civil Procedure Code and is, therefore, appealable. I will assume for the purposes of this case that it is so. There may be some other cases in which there may be arguments for considering whether or not that is a decree within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code. Now what happened in this case was this. We are, told that there was a conflict of legal opinion on this important case. There was a consultation amongst the Pleaders practising in the Munsif's Court as to the course the plaintiff should adopt under the law. That opinion did not, however, agree with a similar consultation that took place amongst the Pleaders practising in the Court of the District Judge and the appellant before us admitted a...
Dwarka Nath Dey Chowdhury Vs. Sailaja Kanta Mullik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.702
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nadia modifying the decision of the Munsif of Ranaghat. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover rent in respect of three jamas. The defences raised were three. First of all, that the plaintiff had not got the title, secondly, that the suit could not proceed owing to the boundaries of the jotes not being given and thirdly, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. The first Court decided the suit wholly in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, the lower. Appellate Court has reversed that decision and has given a decree to the plaintiff as regards one jama only. We are not concerned with that jama, because the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court concurred with the Judge of the Primary Court as regards that and there is no appeal with reference to it. It is only with regard to the other two jamas which are called Mudafat Kamal Chand Mullik and Biswa Nath Mullik that our decis...
Sailaja Nath Roy Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Chandi Charan Laha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.552
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Khulna, dated the 16th September 1915, confirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Though the case was transferred to the Civil Court for the purpose of trial, still the suit was a suit instituted under the provisions of Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Now, what is the proper Court-fee in a suit instituted under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act? There is a clear decision of this Court in the case of Satis Chandra Giri v. Gopal Chandra Rai 7 Ind. Cas. 627 : 12 C.L.J. 638 : 15 C.W.N. 110 that a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is a suit for a declaratory decree within the meaning of Article 17, Clause (3) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act and that, therefore, the plaint in such a suit does not require an ad valorem stamp. On the other hand, the learned Judges of the Courts ...
Prem Chand Gorai Vs. Sonatan Saha Alias Sonaulla Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.268
Charles Chitty, J.1. On the 18th December 1916 the petitioner, Prem Chand Gorai, filed a suit in the Small Cause Court at Midna-pore against Sonatan Shaba alias Sonaulla Saha to recover a sum of Rs. 497 for the price of goods sold and money advanced on an account between the parties. The suit was heard by the Subordinate Judge, Babu S.C. Chakravarti. From the record it appears that the plaintiff stated in exami-nation-in-chief that he paid an income tax of of Rs. 250. The Subordinate Judge in his judgment remarked that it was unlikely that the plaintiff as a Mahajan of standing would prefer a false claim for so small an amount as Rs. 497. There is nothing to indicate that this remark had a direct reference to the statement of the plaintiff regarding income tax, though of course that may have been the case. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on 28th March 1917. On 30th March 1917 the plaintiff decree holder applied for execution, but the judgment-debtor's p...
Brojendra Nath Bakshi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.275
1. In this case we do not think that any prima facie case of an intention to defraud on the part of Brojendra Nath Bakshi has been made out which would justify his prosecution under Section 64 of the Indian Stamp Act. The fact that a sum of money had been advanced by his father for the marriage expenses of the grantees of the kabuliyat was fully set out in the kabuliyat. The only thing that was not set out was the precise amount advanced and the rate of interest which it was intended to carry. The petitioner should have been asked to specify those amounts in order that the stamp duty might be assessed. Instead of giving him that chance the authorities at once proceeded against him under Section 64, The stamp duty, so far as we can judge, would not have been more than Rs. 18 for the whole amount of principal and interest. We are not satisfied that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the Government of that trifling sum. The Rule is accordingly made absolute a...
Srilal Chamaria and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.680
Chitty, J.1. The question before us on this Rule is whether the case now pending against the petitioners before Mr. K.B. Das Gnpta should not be transferred to some other Magistrate, on the ground that that gentleman is a necessary witness for the defence. In applying for a transfer of this kind I think that an accused must satisfy this Court that the Magistrate whom he desires to call as a witness will be a necessary and essential witness for the defence. In this case the accused say that the Magistrate is required to give his evidence as to the credit of another witness Karuna Bhusan Banerjee, who is no doubt one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution, and that his evidence will be admissible under Section 155(1) of the Evidence Act. In support of this application they have put forward certain facts which they claim to have elicited from the witness Girija in cross-examination. It is not suggested that the witness Girija has said anything in his examination-in-chief which is ...
A.C. Tops Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal444,(1919)ILR46Cal31,49Ind.Cas.913
Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule granted by my learned brother and me upon the petition of Aloysius Christoffel Tops on the 4th of March this year and directed to the District Magistrate of the 24-Parganahs to show cause why the said Aloysius Christoffel Tops should not be discharged from custody on the grounds mentioned in the petition or why this Court should not grant him such other relief as to this Court might seem fit. It was further ordered that a copy of the Rule and of the petition should be served upon the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs of the Government of Bengal and also upon the Consul for the Netherlands at Calcutta.2. It appears that on the 4th May 1917 a requisition was sent by the Cousul-General for the Netherlands to the Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign and Political Department, in these terms: 'Acting upon instructions received from the Government of Netherlands, the East Indies, I have the honour to enclose herewith a legalised copy o...
Protap Chandra Dhar Vs. Peary Mohun Dhar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1061,48Ind.Cas.669
Richardson, J.1. The appellant before us is the plaintiff in a suit for the redemption of a mortgage. The property in question originally belonged to 5 brothers--Ram Dayal, Uma Charan, Pran Krishna, Akhil Chandra and Nishi. In the year 1896, the first four of these brothers executed a mortgage by way of conditional sale in favour of defendant No. 4. Thereafter Pran Krishna purchased the share of his three brothers Ram Dayal, Akhil and Nishi. Having done so, he mortgaged certain properties, including some of the properties which were the subject of the prior mortgage, to defendants Nos. 2 and 3. That was in 1899 or 1900. On the 31st October 1900 the defendant No. 4 brought a suit on his mortgage, and on the 18th June 1901 obtained a final decree for foreclosure. The puisne mortgagees, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, were not made parties to the suit. In 1902 the defendant No. 4 sold his decree to the defendant No. 1. In the same year the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 instituted a suit upon their...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »