Kolkata Court April 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.
Raja Kishore Lal Goswami Vs. Tarapada Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.875
Fletcher, J.3. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hughly, dated the 4th April 1916, modifying the decision of the Munsif at Serampore. The defendant took a lease of certain property to which the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act apply for the purpose of carrying on a shop--for the purpose of his aratdari business amongst other things. The lease provided for the payment of a certain amount of rent. It also provides that the lessee should pay dan or or over the stipulated rent as part of the rent in respect of goods that should be sold in his arat or on boat or shop or road as aratdar on certain terms. Dr. Kanjilal at the conclusion of his argument was driven to admit that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, in so far as it refused to decree the commission in respect of goods sold in the shop as aratdar, oonld not be supported. That is obvious. The only question is with reference to the goods sold on boat or road. D...
Sripati Lal Dutt and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.78
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned District Judge of Bankurah, dated the 21st March 1916, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The plaintiffs brought the suit to enforce a mortgage. The learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court held on reading the mortgage-deed that the suit was barred by limitation. The question is one that has arisen in other cases in this Court. Every case must, of course, turn on the construction that the Court places on the mortgage-deed in that particular case. In the present case, the plaintiffs lent a certain amount of rice to the mortgagees and there was the usual covenant in the case of repayment and interest and the bond also provided that, if default was made in the kists, the mortgagees would be competent to realise the money which would be due at the rate of Rs. 6 per map and that the realization might be made by sale of the mortgaged property mentioned in the schedule to t...
Sarada Prosad Roy Vs. Ananda Moy Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.228
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 20th April 1916, reversing the decree of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit for setting aside a conveyance and a sale under Regulation VIII of 1819, with respect to a 1 anna 8 gunda odd share in a Putni. The share in the Putni is said to have been sold by the defendants Nos. 8 and 9 on behalf of the plaintiff on the 10th Assar 1319 when he was a minor, the defendant No. 8 being the executor of the plaintiff's uncle's Will and the defendant No. 9 being his mother. The fact found is that the plaintiff was not a minor at the time of the sale and, therefore, it is obvious that his mother could not sell the property on his behalf. The case is obviously a clear case of caveat emptor and the learned Judge has found that there was no case of representation by plaintiff that he had not reached the age of majority. A point is made that, as ...
Dhananjoy Manjhi Vs. Upendranath Deb Sarbhadikary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.429
Richardson, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit and the appellant before us is a landlord and the defendant No. 1 is a tenure-holder in respect of two plots of land within the ambit of the plaintiff's estate. In a Record of Rights published in the year 1910, the land was entered as liable to be assessed with rent (jamajogya). The suit was brought for the purpose of having rent assessed and the defence of the defendant No. 1 is that the land is held rent-free.2. The plaintiff, however, is not the sole land lord. His own case is that the land is situated in a Mauza of which an undivided half appertains to estate No. 1818 and the other half is revenue-free. He claims to be the sole proprietor of estate No. 1818 and to be the owner of a ten-annas share of the moiety of the village held free of revenue. He has made party defendants to the suit the proprietors of the remaining six-annas share of the revenue-free title.3. In the trial Court the Munsif framed five issues, of which the second, third...
Gadadhar Goswami Vs. Nedhiram Modak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.442
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 22nd March 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Khatra. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was right in excluding altogether a document from consideration on the ground that it was not admissible in evidence. The learned Judge has stated that, if the document had been admissible, it would have been a very strong piece of evidence. With that view, we have got nothing to do. If the document is admissible, the weight to be attached to the statement in the document and the value of the document as a piece of evidence are purely matters that belong to the Court of fact and are not capable of being reviewed by this Court. But what is capable of being reviewed by this Court is this. The learned Judge says that this document cannot be looked at as the provisions of the law prevent him from taking it into ...
Manindra Mohan Sanyal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal215
Beachcroft, J.1. Did Clause (e) find a place in the previous Codes?2. No, and if the scope of Section 110 has been extended by Clause (e), the cases cited would not be direct authorities but would, nevertheless, support the principle of construction that Clause (f) must be read with the preceding clauses, so far as can be, and as contemplating similar cases see Wahid Ali Khan v. Emperor (1907) 11 C.W.N. 789 where Clause (f) was read with Clause (d).3. The words 'is so' in Clause (f) refer to present danger. Mere inculcation of revolutionary ideas, unaccompanied with overt acts exhibiting present danger to the person or property, would not bring the case within the clause. Next 'Community' in Clause (f) must mean the community in general within the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The finding of a connection between the petitioners and an organization to commit dacoity in other parts of Bengal would not be sufficient, as the dacoities might be committed outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction, ...
Monindra Mohan Sanyal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.152
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule obtained by five petitioners calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order against the five petitioners should not be set aside and such other or further order passed as to this Court might seem fit, as regards Monohar Pyne on the ground that the District Magistrate had no juris* diction to entertain proceedings against him under Section 110, and as regards all the petitioners, on grounds Nos. 1, 12 and 13 in the petition mentioned, and also on the ground that the proceedings should have been under Section 108 rather than under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code.2. It appears that the Police Sub-Inspector of Sadar Dinajpur, on the 3rd of May 1917 made a report under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Clause (f) against the petitioners and one Jogendra Kishore Bhuttacharjee to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of that place to the effect that the above mentioned persons were members of a secret society, the aim of whic...
Gosta Behari De and ors. Vs. Gosta Behari Lumanta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.243
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 22nd December 1915. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage security; so the plaint states; and the way in which the plaintiffs say they got their mortgage security is this; The plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are brothers and the defendant No. 4 and the father of the defendants Nos. 5 and 6 are their half-brothers. The defendant No. 4 was the karta of the family. He brought a suit to recover money on a hatchitta against the defendant No. 1. That suit was compromised and the compromise petition provided that a decree should be passed in favour of the defendant No. 4 but that the amount should be paid by instalments and in default of payment of two instalments, the whole amount would be recoverable; and the defendant No. 1 hypothecated certain immoveable properties by way of security to secure the repayment of the amount decreed by consent. The present plaintiffs, ...
Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Mahant Bhagawan Das Shebait of Iswar Raghuna ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.781
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Birbhum, dated the 28th January 1916, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit under the provisions of Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to amend a Record of Rights. The dispute in this case is a dispute between two neighbouring proprietors and, therefore, the case comes within the provisions of Section 102 (dd). The learned District Judge in this case has considered that having regard to the authorities in this Court, the only question between these rival proprietors that he can go into in a suit instituted under the provisions of Sections 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is the question as to which of these two rival proprietors was in possession of the land in question at the date of the final publication of the Record of Rights. I think that the authorities in this Court do establish that. I have authorities beginning with the decisio...
Jagan Nath Marwari and ors. Vs. East Indian Railway Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.933
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 18th March 1916, reversing the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the same place. The plaintiff sued to recover damages for breach by the defendant Railway Company of a contract to carry and deliver to him certain bags of grain. The goods were admittedly consigned to the Company and they arrived at the destination and apparently five bags were found in a stack in a torn condition. Thereupon, the plaintiff set up the case that he was entitled to have the goods re-weighed and to receive a certificate of shortage, and apparently he set up the case that he was entitled to have the goods re-weighed on his scales and not on the weighbridge of the defendant Company. The defendant Company through their servants refused to assent to the demands of the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff refused to take delivery and the goods were left in the custody of the Railway...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »