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.
Secretary of State for India Vs. Shib NaraIn Hajra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal199
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State in a suit brought against him by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. As the suit was not instituted within the period of six months prescribed by Clause (2) of the section, it is contended for the Secretary of State and has been contended throughout, that the suit is out of time. The Courts below have overruled this plea of limitation on the ground that the plaintiffs are entitled under Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act of 1908 to a deduction of two months in respect of the notice which Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code required them to give to the Secretary of State or his representative before they could present their plaint. The question is whether the view so taken is right or wrong.3. The precise point which arises was determined in the Secretary of State's favour by the judgment of this Court in Secretary of State for India v. Gangadhar (1917) 27 C.L.J. 374. The learne...
Nilmony Chowdhury, Vs. Durga Charan Chander and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.377
Richardson, J.1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings in insolvency before the District Judge of Hooghly.2. The material facts as stated to us are as follows:3. Bhobotara Mullick and his nephew Tripura Chandra Mullick, as tenants-in-common in equal shares of a property comprising an area of 24 bighas, purported, by an instrument, dated the 16th March 1913, to convey it to Nilmony Chowdhury, the appellant, for consideration of Rs. 2,000.4. On the 25th June 1915 Bhobotara applied to be adjudicated insolvent. Apparently the petition was opposed, and on the 11th February 1916, before the order of adjudication was made, a Receiver was appointed of the petitioner's estate at the instance of the opposing creditor. On the same day, at the instance of the creditor, the Receiver was directed by the District Judge to take possession of certain properties, including the appellant's original half share in the property apparently conveyed to the appellant. It is to that half share that this...
The Hon'ble Maharaja Ranjit Sinha Vs. Abdur Rahim Khan Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1004(1),45Ind.Cas.190
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, the Zemindar, against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rajshabye, affirming the decision of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge of the same place. The suit was brought for abatement of rent by a patnidar in respect of 75 bighas of land oompulsorily acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The suit was instituted for abatement of rent and also for abatement of cesses'. In the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff applied to the learned Subordinate Judge for leave to withdraw his claim for cesses, with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The first Court allowed that and granted an abatement of the rent. The defendant appealed to the learned District Judge and the learned District Judge decided as follows: First of all, with regard to the lease granted to the plaintiff to withdraw his claim for cesses with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the l...
Moonshi Shahed Baksh Vs. Golam Nabi Khondokar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.117
Fletcher, J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 23rd December 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Kalna, The two cases are these:--In the suit out of which Second Appeal No. 823 arises, the plaintiff sued for a declaration that a religious office along with the endowment that went therewith was not liable to be mortgaged by the person who had at the time been holding the office, and, in the other case, namely, the suit out of which Second Appeal No. 775 arises, the plaintiff sought to enforce a mortgage that had been granted by a former holder of the office. It appears that there is a Muhammadan shrine dedicated to a certain Peer to which the Muhammadans of the District are accustomed to resort for religious purposes; and, for the purposes of the upkeep of what is called the asthana and for the suitable performance of the necessary ceremonies and observances that take place in the shrine, persons are r...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Shib NaraIn Hazra and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Cal819,47Ind.Cas.502
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State in a suit brought against him by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. As the suit was not instituted within the period of six months prescribed by Clause (2) of the Section, it is contended for the Secretary of State, and has been contended throughout, that the suit is out of time. The Courts below have overruled this plea of limitation, on the ground that the plaintiffs are entitled under Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act of 1908 to a deduction of two months in respect of the notice which Section 8C of the Civil Procedure Code required them to give to the Secretary of State or his representative before they could present their plaint. The question is whether the view so taken is right or wrong.3. The precise point which arises was determined in the Secretary of State's favour by the judgment of this Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 405 of 1914 (decided by Mookerjee and W...
Siba Krishna Sinha Sarma and ors. Vs. Jagat Chandra Talukdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.732
Woodroffe, J.1. This was a suit to recover arrears of rent in respect of a tenure. This tenure originally belonged to a man of the name of Ram Saran Bachaspati, and the persons sued for rent were two persons of the names of Jagat Chandra Talukdar and Nritya Sundari Dassi who were his heirs.2. It appears, in the first place, that in this suit the plaintiffs sued both the persons entitled to the tenure. When the case came on for hearing an objection was taken that, as stated in the pleadings, the interest of the first defendant had ceased in the tenure, for in 1305 he sold it to two persons of the names of Syam Sundar Sarkar and Nritya Sundari Dasi, and the former sold it again to Dwarka Lal Sarkar and the latter to one Anath Bandhu Guha. One of these persons applied to be made a party to the suit. It appears that as regards the transfer there is no question of the right of transferability--the landlord's fee was paid and the name of the transferee was recorded in the khatian. On that an...
SainuddIn Vs. Latifannessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal141
Shams-ul-Huda, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife the defendant No. 1. The facts of the case are shortly these: The parties were married in 1308 when a kabinnamah was executed but not registered. This document was subsequently lost. A dispute then arose between the parties which was settled by the execution and registration of a second kabinnamah in 1313. Among other matters the new kabinnamah provided that the plaintiff would not take a second wife without the defendant's permission. The document concluded as follows:--'Be it noted that if I violate any of the aforesaid conditions or any portion thereof, I delegate to you my own power of giving three talaqs such as is possessed by males. Whenever you choose you may talaq or repudiate your person three times and then take another husband '2. It is found that between 1313 and 1320 the plaintiff appellant took a second wife without obtaining the permission of...
SainuddIn Vs. Srimati Latifannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.609
Syed Shamsul Huda, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, the defendant No. 1. The facts of the case are shortly these. The parties were married in 1308, when a Kabin-namah was executed but not registered. This document was subsequently lost. A dispute then arose between the parties, which was settled by the execution and registration of a second Kabin-namah in 1313. Among other matters the new Kabin-namah provided that the plaintiff would not take a second wife without the defendant's permission. The document concluded as follows: 'Be it noted that if I violate any of the aforesaid conditions or any portion thereof, I delegate to you my own power of giving three talaqs such as is possessed by males. Whenever you choose you may talaq or repudiate your person three times and then take another husband.2. It is found that between 1313 and 1320 the plaintiff-appellant took a second wife without obtaining the permi...
Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. Khalil (Khalilur in Vakalatnama) Rahaman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.355
1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5 against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 22nd January 1916, modifying the decision of the Munsif of Hathazari. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for possession on declaration of title, the plaintiff claiming an interest in the property as one of the heirs of his deceased wife. It appears that the original owner of the property was one Ashad Ali. He died leaving a widow, two daughters and a grandson by a predeceased son. One of these two daughters was the wife of the plaintiff. She survived her father and the plaintiff claims through her. The defence raised was that Ashad Ali had given away the property by five kobalas; that is, deeds of sale. The first Court found that the kobalas were gifts up to the extent of 1/3rd. The lower Appellate Court reduced the share to which the first Court found the plaintiff was entitled to 2 1/3 annas of the whole. It is quite clear that the lea...
Peari Lal Das and ors. Vs. BepIn Behari Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.336
1. In these two Rules it appears that one Kamini Sundari Dasi made a Will by which she dedicated the bulk of her property to a certain deity.2. By the Will she appointed six executors, of whom three Pyari Lal, Nadiar Chand and Bepin Behari Saha proved the Will and obtained a grant of probate on the 12th of August 1912. The remaining three Koylash Chandra, Bepin Behari Das and Sarat Lal have now applied that they should be joined in the grant, but of these the first named has since formally renounced his executorship.3. The applications of Bepin Behari Das and Sarat Lal are opposed by the three executors to whom probate was granted in the first instance. They alleged on the part of the applicants adverse interest, lack of business capacity and waiver and their contention before us is that issues on these questions should have been framed.4. We are unable to accede to this contention. It is not suggested that either of these present applicants renounced his exeoutorship in the manner con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »