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.
Gobinda Hota Vs. Kristapada Singha Babu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.929
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against the decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Khatra. The plaintiff sued for possession of certain chur lands. The defence of the tenant, the defendant No. 1, was that these lands were gradual accretions to his holding and, therefore, although he might be liable to pay additional rent, the plaintiff was not entitled to ejeot him. The case in the lower Appellate Court quite clearly proceeded on the footing that the defendant No. 1 had got a Mukarrari holding. That is quite clear from the judgment of the learned District Judge. It is much too late now for the plaintiff to raise the case that the holding is not a Mukarrari one. He ought to have raised it when the case was decided in the Courts below. The real point is this: The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found that these lands are gradual accretions to the lands of the defendant No. 1 forming a chur in a sma...
Rajlakshmi Dasya Vs. Maharaja Bahadur Sir Prodyot Kumar Tagore and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.184
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rungpur, dated the 26th April 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Gaibanda. The plaintiff brought the suit for arrears of rent. The defendant set up the case that he was entitled to a suspension of the rent because he had been ousted by the plaintiff from a portion of the holding. The case went to trial. The Munsif appointed a Civil Court Amin and there seems to have been a considerable body of evidence before the Court. The Munsif held that the plaintiff had dispossessed the defendant of a portion of the land and that, therefore, there ought to be an abatement of the rent. An appeal was then preferred to the Court of the learned District Judge and the learned District Judge came to this conclusion. First of all, he held that the defendant had, in fact, been dispossessed by the plaintiff of these plots of land. But he said that it had not been shown that these plots formed ...
Purnananda Datta and ors. Vs. Abinash Chandra Chattoraj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.624
1. The question involved in this appeal relates to the principle on which mesne profits should be ascertained in the present case.2. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, were the landlords in respect of the land in dispute. The lands were held by a tenant Mukunda Mandal. He transferred the lands to the defendants. As, however, the holding was a non-transferable occupancy holding, the transfer was invalid and as the tenant had abandoned the land, the plaintiffs were entitled to get khas possession thereof. The plaintiffs accordingly brought a suit for khas possession and mesne profits. They obtained a decree for possession and then applied for ascertainment of mesne profits.3. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the mesne profits should be assessed on the basis of the actual produce, and not on the basis of the rent which the plaintiffs had been receiving from Mukunda, the tenant, and he made a decree accordingly. On appeal the learned District Judge held that...
Mohendra Nath Bagchi and ors. Vs. Gour Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.867
John Woodroffe, J.1. The present suit is brought by two persons in their capacity as executors of the Will of one Sidheswar Goswami, who by his Will created a Debutter in favour of his deity Sri Sri Gour Gopal and appointed his four disciples as Shebaits. They are Gopeswar Das Goswami, Gobinda Das Brojobashi, Hariswar Das Goswami, and Kristeswar Das Goswami. The last two persons appear to have taken no part in the matter of this Debutter, and they do not appear to have been heard of as stated in paragraph No. 2 of the plaint and as alleged before us. The Will, after appointing these four persons as Shebaits, provided that if Gopeswar Das was unable or unwilling to carry on the Sheba, then Sri Jogneswar Goasain would act as Shebait in his place; and it is stated that this man Jogneswar has not been found also. Nothing, however, turns upon the facts that are stated here in the view that I take of this case. The other two, Gopeswar Das and Gobinda Das, by deeds of transfer made over their...
Jogesh Chandra Banerjee Vs. Sarada Kumar Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal127,49Ind.Cas.834
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge of Tipperah, dated the 26th April 1916, modifying the decision of the Munsif of Comilla, The cape is somewhat out of the common. The plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment from certain land within the Municipality. In the first Court, the defendant No. 2 did not appear and the suit was decreed against him. The defendant No. 3 was a party and the suit was partially decreed against him. The defendant No. 1 was also a party. Then the defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and he lost his appeal in full. The learned Judge, however, without making the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 parties to the appeal, modified the decree of the Court of first instance in so far as those two defendants were concerned. In our opinion, the learned Judge ought not to have modified the decree of the Court of first instance in favour of these absent defendants without making them parties, as he ...
Girish Chandra Mitra Vs. Giribala Debi, Widow of Adya Charan Mukhopadh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.937
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Birbhum dated the 16th February 1916 reversing the decision of the Munsif at Sari. The plaintiff sued to recover possession on the ground that he had the right as a tenant. The story of the title is a complicated one. Amongst the defendants-landlords are the defendants Nos. 2 and H, and it has been found as a fact in this case that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 dispossessed the plaintiff more than two years prior to the institution of the suit. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation under Article 3 of Schedule 111 to the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is said that that is not so, because in this case the landlords recognized the interest of the plaintiff as being a subsisting interest, and the manner in which it is said that the landlords recognized the interest of the plaintiff is this: That, in a mortgage suit by one Rajubala, another of the co-sharer landlords, the Court recognized that the plaint...
Lakhi Kanta Roy and ors. Vs. Raj Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal976,46Ind.Cas.374
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a second appeal. The suit was started in the Court of the Munsif for a declaration of the plaintiff's right of way. The learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court decreed the right of way, having found that it had been used by the owners of the dominant tenement for about fifty years. Mr. Justice Newbould reversed that finding on the ground that, as the way ran through the compound of the defendants from north to south, it was difficult, as the learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court remarked, to locate the exact position in which the way lay, nor was there any satisfactory evidence to show that a definite track was always used. In that view, Mr. Justice Newbould held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their right of way over this path of the way claimed and dismissed that part of the suit. I do not agree with the view of Mr. Justice Newbould. The ques...
Rajani Kanta Roy Vs. Manmatha Nath Nandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.665
1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 3 from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly reversing the decision of the Munsif of Howrah. The plaintiff brought the suit to enforce a mortgage. The mortgage was given by the second defendant acting on behalf of her minor sons, of whom she was the certificated guardian. The sanction of the Court was not, however, obtained under the provisions of Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The defendant No. 3, who is the appellant, subsequently purchased the mortgaged property from the guardian mother acting on behalf of the minors and the sanction of the Court was obtained to that sale. Therefore, under the provisions of the law, that property properly passed to the defendant No. 3. It is said now that as the mother properly spent the money that she borrowed on the mortgage for the benefit of the minors and as the minors were benefited, therefore, the purchaser who has got a regular and complete title in the way provided for...
Krishna Gopal Bhowmik and anr. and Vs. Hem Chandra Bairagi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.908
Charles Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit brought by them to recover khas possession of certain land, on a declaration that it is contiguous accretion to raiyoti jamai land held by them and that an order attaching the land under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, may be set aside. The suit was decreed by the Munsif but dismissed on appeal by the District Judge. An appeal by the plaintiffs to this Court was allowed by D. Chatterjee and Walmsley, JJ., but that judgment was set aside by Walmsley, J., on review and the appeal restored to the file, It is noteworthy that the grounds on which the review was granted have not been pressed before us, but the case has been re argued on much the same lines as at the former hearing. It is now conceded that no question arises as to Section 4 of Regulation XI of 1825 as put forward in ground (7) in the application for review. The real question is whether the lands in dispute were included in the auction-sale...
A.C. Tops Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal509,(1919)ILR46Cal52,50Ind.Cas.17
Chaudhuri, J.1. I have clearly no jurisdiction in this matter so far as Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned. The applicant was not arrested within the jurisdiction of this Court nor has he been detained within the jurisdiction of this Court. An enquiry was directed into his case by the Government of India under Section 3 of the Extradition Act. That enquiry has now been held by the Magistrate empowered to hold the enquiry, and the Magistrate has made his report to the Government of India under Sub-clause (6) of that section and his report is now under the consideration of the Government of India. Section 11 of the English Extradition Act of 1870 provides that a fugitive criminal may apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus if the Magistrate commits him to prison. There is no such provision in our Extradition Act and Sub-clauses (6) and (7) have provided a special procedure. The question therefore arises as to whether this Court has still power to issue a writ having regard...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »