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.
Joy Chandra Das Gupta Vs. Srimati Khuki, Minor by Her Maternal Uncle R ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.587
1. In this case the defendant has set up two defences, first of all it is stated that the land was part of a Miras tenure of which she was the holder and the second was adverse possession. Both the Courts have held that the first ground failed. The question that arises now is as regards the second ground. The Munsif has found that the land was in possession of Sitanath as a tenant up to the year 1313, corresponding to 1906. He also appears to have accepted the case of the plaintiff that Sitanath got this land by inheritance from one Haridas, who is said to have held it as a tenant under the plaintiff. The Munsif then found that the tenancy was abandoned by Sitanath in 1313 and was sold by him. This story of the sale and abandonment has not been accepted by the Subordinate Judge, who finds that Sitanath was not in possession of the disputed land within 12 years before the date of suit, and the account of the sale and abandonment is a got up story. He does not, however, find that Sitanat...
Kirti Chandra Daw Vs. BepIn Behari Pal Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.721
Fletcher, J.1. This Rule must be made absolute. The facts are these. The decree-holder-petitioner obtained a decree for Rs. 30,000 in the Original Side of this Court. That decree was transmitted to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly for execution. It is not necessary to go into the long and various proceedings that have taken place with reference to the execution of that decree. It is sufficient to say that in the end the properties of the judgment-debtors remained under attachment and, that being so, most of the judgment-debtors compromised the matter with the decree-holder (sic) it was agreed that as regards their (sic) ability the decree-holder should accept a certain sum in cash and, on the payment being made, their share should be released. It was also provided by the terms of the compromise that pending the payment the attachment should continue. The compromise, however, did not affect the shares of two of the judgment-debtors, namely, one Bepin Behari Pal Chaudhury an...
Mohendra Nath Pal Vs. Sheikh NasiruddIn Mahammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.887
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against the decision of the learned District Judge of Midnapore, dated the 11th May 1917, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The decree-holder was the plaintiff in the suit. He and his co-sharers had purchased in execution of a rent decree 52 Bighas of land. In attempting to take possession of the 52 bighas, the plaintiff and his co-sharers were resisted. Thereupon, a suit was brought for khas possession. That was decreed and the plaintiff was put into khas possession of the whole of the 52 bighas, except plot No. 11 which is the subject-matter of the present case. Then, not having obtained actual possession of plot No. 11, the plaintiff brought a suit on the footing of an eight-anna share-holder to recover khas possession of the land. The suit was dismissed by the Courts below; but this Court decreed it on appeal in this manner, namely, that it declared the plaintiff's right to an eight-anna share of plot No. 1...
Shaikh Golam Khalik Vs. Tasardak Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal985,46Ind.Cas.890
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against the decision of the learned District Judge of Midnapore, dated the 14th December 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Contai. The appeal is preferred against an order passed in an execution case and the points raised are these: First of all, the question arose whether the present appellant was entitled to maintain the present application. The facts are these. The appellant is the son of the original decree-holder. He is not the only son or the only heir, but after the death of his father he made an application under the provisions of the Succession Certificate Act, to which he made the other heirs of his deceased father parties, as to the grant of a certificate in order to entitle him to obtain the particular decretal amount. He alleged in his application that he was the only person entitled to this judgment-debt. Section 4of the Succession Certificate Act provides that no Court shall pass a decree against a debtor ...
Jogemaya Dassi Vs. Baidyanath Pramanick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.924
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for the attachment of certain properties of the defendants. On the 2nd May last, I granted a Rule calling on the defendants to show cause why these propel ties should not be attached and the Rule now comes on for hearing, On the 28th September 1913 the plaintiff advanced to the defendants the sum of Rs. 6,003 and the defendants thereupon deposited the title-deeds of No. 3, Jebb's Lane, in this city to secure the sum advanced and interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum. The, defendants agreed to repay the advance together with interest thereon at the rate aforesaid within 6 months from the date of the advance; default was made by the defendants in repaying the advance and, on the 21st November 191A the plaintiff commenced a suit to recover the money advanced together with interest thereon. On the 28th May 1917 a preliminary mortgage decree was passed in the suit declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to a charge for the sum adva...
Ah Foong Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal411
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Ah Foong Chinaman who was charged along with two others with an alleged offence under Sezction 9, Clauses (c) and (d), of the Opium Act of 1878. The appellant was called the third accused in the trial Court.2. The facts of this case may be shortly, stated as follows: The Excise Officers apparently had got information about a contemplated dealing with some opium, and having engaged two taxi-cabs they proceeded to a place called Ghoosery, and having stopped at a certain place near the darga they waited: and presently another taxi-cab drove up, and the Excise Officers ran out and seized the persons who were in the taxi-cab: one was the first accused who was sitting inside the taxi-cab, the other was the second accused who was the driver of the taxi-cab; they then found inside the taxi-cab three gunny bags-the first accused was sitting in the cab with his feet either on or over the bags. The bags were taken out and opened in the presence of the first ...
Ah Foong Chinaman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.504
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Ah Foong Chinaman, who was charged along with two others with an alleged offence under Section 9, Clauses (c) and (d) of the Opium Act of 1878. The appellant was called the third accused in the Trial Court.2. The facts of this case may be shortly stated as follows: The Excise Officers apparently had got information about a contemplated dealing with some opium and having engaged two Taxi Cabs they proceeded to a place called Ghusury, and having stopped at a certain place near the Durga they waited: and presently another Taxi Cab drove up, and the Excise Officers ran out and seized the persons who were in that Taxi Cab--one was the first accused who was sitting inside the Taxi Cab; the other was the second accused who was the driver of the Taxi Cab. They then found inside the Taxi Cab three gunny bags: the first accused was sitting in the cab with his feet either on or over the bags. The bags were taken out and opened in the presence of the...
Hari Das Basak Vs. Radha Charan Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal992,46Ind.Cas.496
Teunon, J.1. This appeal arises out of a dispute between two of a number of co-sharers in a certain property. The plaintiffs' share in the property, it appears, is 4 annas 5 gandas while the defendant's share is 1/12ths. Within this property there is, it appears, a market place known as Mirkadin. The findings of fact are that a portion of this market diluviated some years ago; that some 7 years before suit the land now in question and other lands re-formed and that thereupon while the lands were lying waste, the defendants erected upon the portion in dispute a corrugated iron shed which is said to measure 40 into 90 cubits; that this shed is divided into compartments and by letting out the compartments to shopkeepers the defendant is realizing an income of Rs. 200 per annum. When the shed was erected, it does not appear that either the plaintiff or any of the co-sharers took exception to its construction and the plaintiff's suit was not brought until 1322, that is, 4 years and some mon...
Hdyanath Ray and ors. Vs. Bisseswar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.553
Teunon, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs who are the appellants before us, sued for declaration of their title to and confirmation of their possession in a certain plot of land on the ground that the defendants had threatened to take possession thereof. There was also a prayer for temporary injunction. The defence was that the title was with the defendants and that they in fact were in possession. Without considering the evidence or trying the case, the learned District Judge held that on these allegations there was no cause of action in the plaint. This is a view which speaking for myself I am wholly unable to appreciate. It appears to me that a good cause of action was alleged and that the case should have been heard and disposed of on the merits. We, therefore, remand the case for that purpose. Costs will be costs in the case.Richardson, J.2. I concur with the order of remand made by my learned brother. The facts not having been found I express no opinion whether the suit as framed ...
Wahid Ali Bhuya and ors. Vs. Mahamad Ansar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal988,47Ind.Cas.147
Richardson, J.1. As between the plaintiffs and the defendants, apart from any settlement by the landlords, the plaintiffs have the better title. The plaintiffs purchased what must be assumed to be a non-transferable occupancy holding from the heirs of Sadali, who is found to have been the original tenant, and their conveyance is dated the 11th January 1912. By a conveyance dated the 18th January of the same year the defendants purported to purchase the holding from Abdul Khan. The latter had married Sadali's granddaughter, but it is conclusively found that he had no right, title or interest in the holding. The defend-ants, therefore, purchased nothing.2. But then the defendants were the first to obtain settlement from the landlord. It is true that the landlord a few days later again settled the land with the plaintiffs, but, says the learned Subordinate Judge, the plaintiffs took no advantage thereby. His reason is that upon the sale of the holding by Sadali's heirs, the original tenan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »