Kolkata Court May 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 Narendra Lal Khan Vs. Hrishikesh Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal875,46Ind.Cas.765
Walmsley, J.1. The suit from which these two appeals arise was based on a mortgage and a deed of further charge executed by-one Hrishikesh Mukherjee in favour of Rajah Narendra Lal Khan, the plaintiff.2. For the purpose of understanding the questions that have to be answered, it will be convenient to begin with a narrative of the circumstances which led up to the execution of the two deeds.3. One Rakhal Das Mukherjee left two sons, Bir Chandra Mukherjee and Janoki Nath Mukherjee. The elder son Bir Chandra died without issue in 1871, leaving a widow Janoki on May 5th, 1893, adopted Basanta, the son of Grish Chandra Chatterjee and gave him the name of Hrishikesh Mukherjee. In the same year Janoki executed an arpan-nama, purporting to create a trust for the benefit of certain Thakurs. In November 1895 Janoki executed a Will, and in the following month he died, leaving him surviving his widow Saratmani Debya, and the boy Hrishikesh. Saratmani applied for Probate of the Will and after some ...
Bhut Nath Chatterjee Vs. Biraj Mohini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.87
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by an opposing creditor against the decision of the learned District Judge of Hooghly, dated the 26th May 1917. The respondent to the appeal is the wife of the insolvent. What is found is this--and it cannot be challenged--that the insolvent within two years prior to his insolvency made a transfer of a portion of his property, not being a transfer made before and in consideration of marriage or made in favour of a purchaser or' incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration, to his wife. That transfer is ipso facto void as against the Official Receiver and the property comprised in that transfer is liable to be distributed amongst the general body of creditors. The learned Judge of the Court below thought that he had a discretion as to whether this property should be distributed amongst the creditors and came to the conclusion that in this case the property ought not to be so distributed. The Judge has given no reasons for coming to that conc...
Abdul Hamid Sadagar Vs. Srimati Akhina Khatun, Daughter of Abdul Rahma ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1072(2),47Ind.Cas.850
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the First Court at Chittagong, dated the 16th December 1916. The appeal is preferred against an order of the learned Judge granting a review of judgment. Such order, though appealable under the provisions of Order XLIII, Rule 1(w), is subject to the limitations mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 7, namely, that there can be an appeal only upon the grounds mentioned in that rule. It is quite clear that the present case comes within none of the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 7. That being so, no right of appeal is given to the appellant against the order of the learned Judge granting a review of the judgment. The present appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs....
Sheikh Ala Bux and ors. Vs. Sheikh Khidir Ahmad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.618
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hughly, dated the 30th May 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Uluberia. The suit was brought to establish title any 'to recover possession of three plots of land. The first Court decreed the suit as regards plots Nos. 1 and 2. Against that decision, the defendant No. 7 appealed and a cross appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs. What happened in the lower Appellate Court was this: The learned Judge who presided over that Court, namely, the learned 1st Subordinate Judge of Hughly, apparently had many duties cast upon him and, amongst others to hold courts at other places besides Hughly. In this case, the learned Judge having written and signed his judgment found it inconvenient to himself, having regard to other public duties he had to discharge, to be present in the Court house at Hughly for the purpose of pronouncing the judgment so written and signed by him. In these...
Hemanta Kumar Kar Vs. Birendra Nath Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal969,47Ind.Cas.1003
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Pabna, dated the 20th September 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. It is stated that the suit is brought under the terms of Section 149 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That is not strictly accurate. The suit goes far beyond the terms of a suit authorised by Section 149 of the Bengal Tenancy .Act.2. The facts are these. The defendant sued a person alleged to be his tenant for rent. The tenant pleaded that the present defendant was not his landlord but a third party was and, in compliance with the terms of Section 149 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, he paid into Court the amount claimed for rent. Thereupon the Court directed notice to be served on the third party, that is, the present plaintiffs. The objections to the suit are these: It is said, first of all, that, in a former rent suit, the present defendant had recorded judgment against the tenant for rent and tha...
Kali Prasonno Maity and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.144
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned District Judge of Midnapore, dated the 23rd March 1916, modifying the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The suit was brought under the terms of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The learned District Judge has held that the matter raised in the suit could not be raised under the terms of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. As against that, the learned Vakil, who has appeared in support of the appeal, states that the Record of Rights in this case was not published under Sections 104A to 104F and that, therefore, he can, under the general law of the land, question this document as being a document prepared without any legal authority at all. It is quite clear that the evidence does not establish any such case. There is nothing to show that this document was prepared in direct disobedience to the orders of the Government or that the Government had ever made an order under the terms of th...
Amrita Lal Roy and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.447
John Woodroffe, J.1. The facts are already sufficiently set out and I need not repeat them. There does not appear to me to be substance in the objection that the sale proceedings were void as the notices under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act were signed by a Sub-Deputy Collector instead of by the Collector or other officer authorised to hold sales under the Act.2. As pointed out by Chatterjea, J., the authorities are against the contention that the sale is invalid on account of the notices having been published in the jurisdiction of the Pangsha Police Station instead of in that of the Baliakandi Police Station.3. The decision of the contention that there was no arrear for which the property could be sold depends on the findings of fact. The first Court held that there was an arrear and the judgment of the Appellate Court being one of affirmance generally I think that that is the meaning of it on this particular point. The difficulty has arisen from the loose and inaccurate language used b...
G.B. Nairkar Vs. Nalini Ranjan Sirkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.607
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule granted by my learned brother and me calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order granting sanction should not be set aside on sixth ground mentioned in the petition. The sixth ground is as follows: 'For that the case is not a fit one for sanction.'2. The petitioner G.B. Nairkar brought a charge against two individuals who are called the opposite party, Nalini Ranjan Sarkar and Surendra Nath Tagore, and his charge was in respect of alleged offences under Sections 355 and 501 respectively of the Indian Penal Code. Section 355 is Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished...' Section 504 runs as follows: 'Whoever intentionally insults and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to ...
Narendra Nath Mitra Vs. E. Studd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.708
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule which was obtained by Narendra Nath Mitter calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate dated the 23rd January 1918 (directing that the three debentures referred to there-in should be returned to the opposite party) should not be set aside or why such further order should not be made as to this Court might seem fit.2. It appears from the judgment, which was delivered by the learned Magistrate on the 13th of August 1917, that certain debentures were stolen from the office of Messrs. Thomson and Co. in April or May of 1916; that the Police were informed of this matter and the loss of the notes was advertised in the papers. It also appears that on the 23rd of June 1916 one Nagendra Nath Ghose, who has been since convicted of being unlawfully in possession of a large number of these debentures, sold three of them, which are the debentures now in question, to one F...
Murari Mahan Das Vs. Tofel Sha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.164
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Birbhum, dated the 14th September 1916, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Suri. The suit was brought to recover possession of certain Chowkidari Chakran landa lying within two Mouzas. The plaintiff admittedly has got a fifteen-annas shard of these Mouzas under leases granted to him by the owners of the property. The question arises as to the remaining one-anna share; and the way that question arises is this: The defendants are Putnidars claiming through one Gora Chand Roy who originally owned this one-anna share, and the question is whether in the Putni lease granted by Gora Chand Roy the resumed Chowkidari Chakran lands were included, because if they were included it is quite clear that the subsequent lease of the one-anna share of the Chowkidari Chakran lands to the plaintiff was ineffective. The first point is what passed by the lease? The words of demise i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »