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.
TamijuddIn Sarkar Vs. Tazu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal152
Teunon and Richardson, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The original owner of the property it appears was one Jungu Sarkar. The plaintiffs in the suit, the respondents before us, were the sons of his daughter, Tarabai Bibi. The defendant No. 2 was another daughter, while the principal defendant, who is the appellant before us, was the son of Jungu Sarkar. The parties, it may be observed, are Mahomedans.2. With regard to defendant No. 2 it was urged in the Courts below, that her right to a share had been extinguished by adverse possession. Both Courts have decided against the appellant on that point, and with respect to that, the only matter that is urged before us is that the District Judge is wrong in saying that there is evidence to show that some of the respondents at times participated to some extent in the fruits of the property. It was suggested that such evidence as there is, bears only upon the case of the plaintiffs. But that, we find from the judgment of ...
Shaik Tamiz-ud-dIn Sarkar Vs. Shaik Taju and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal721,46Ind.Cas.237
1. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The original owner of the property, it appears to us, was one Ganga Sarkar. The plaintiffs in the suit, the respondents before us, were the sons of his daughter Tarabi Bibi. The defendant No. 2 was another daughter, while the principal defendant who is the appellant before us was the son of Ganga Sarkar. The parties, it may be observed, are Mahomedans.2. With regard to defendant No. 2 it was (sic) in the Courts below that her right to a share had been extinguished by adverse possession. Both Courts have decided against the appellant on that point, and with respect to that the only matter that is urged before us is that the District Judge is wrong in saying that there is evidence to show that some of the respondents at the time participated to some extent in the fruits of the property. It was suggested that such evidence as there is bears only upon the case of the plaintiffs. But that we find from the judgment of the first Court is not c...
Guru Charan Ghose and ors. Vs. Kashi Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal585,46Ind.Cas.480
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is out of time. It was presented four days after the period of limitation had expired. The order that was made when preferring the appeal was that the appeal was admitted subject to any objection that might be taken at the hearing. The course that has been indicated recently by the higher judicial authority is that the point ought to be really adjudicated on at the time of the presentation of the appeal whether any sufficient ground has been shown for extending the time for appealing under the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The ground in this case is that a mistake was made in calculating when the time for filing the appeal expired. It is to be noticed that even accepting the appellant's calculation as correct the appeal was not preferred to this Court until, in his view, the 90th day, which was the last day allowed by the law for preferring an appeal. Of course, if one likes to put off everything to the last moment and only files his s...
Mohendralal Sinha Vs. Sreemutty Krishna Kumari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.656
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place, The suit was brought for rent of a homestead. That rent is due is admitted. The first two defendants are stated to be the original tenants. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are purchasers from the original tenants, the property having been sold to them in order to enable the original tenants to pay off a mortgage, so it is stated by the Munsif, due to the plaintiff. It is said that the holding is not capable of transfer, There is nothing to support that on the record. There is nothing to show that this was an interest in existence prior to the coming into operation of the Transfer of Property Act. If the case is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, the interest is clearly transferable. I do not think that in a case like this we ought to send back the case to be re-heard de novo on the ground that the plaintiff wants t...
Trailokya Nath Roy Chowdhury Vs. Durga Nath Bhattacharjya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.686
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the learned Officiating District Judge of Commilla, dated the 23rd September 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought by the plaintiff who was a common manager appointed by the District Judge under the provisions of Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to recover arrears of pay from the 15th May 1910 when he entered into service down to the 19th September of the same year when he made over charge to his successor. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, in my opinion, quite rightly held that no question of limitation arose in the case at all. The District Judge under Section 98 of the Bengal Tenancy Act has absolute control over matters like this. Under the terms of the section, he has ample power to pass orders with respect to the remuneration of the common manager. Now what was ...
Brojendra Kishore Ray Chowdhury Vs. Kali Kumar Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.967
Teunon, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to have it declared that certain partition proceedings now being conducted by the Revenue Authorities of Assam under an order of the Board of Revenue of Eastern Bengal and Assam, dated 18th/27th July 1911, are ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, I of 1886.2. It appears that in the District of Sylhet, Dassona, Taluk No. 3, Alam Raja, and 5 others Taluks, being permanently settled estates, have specific shares in a Mouzah, named Dhal, the share of Alam Raja in that Mouzah being 6 annas 15 gandas.3. All the Taluks have lands or shares in other Mouzahs but in no other Mouzah is the said Taluk Alam Raja a co-sharer with the other five estates or any one of them.4. The appellant for partition, who is the defendant appellant before us, was the purchaser at a revenue sale in the year 1890 of the residuary share in Alam Raja.5. In the parent estate there had been opened B sep...
Suklal Banikya Vs. Bi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.422
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to set aside a sale held under the Revenue Sale Law (XI of 1859).2. The sale was in respect of a residuary share only. Various irregularities were alleged in the plaint, but the learned Subordinate Judge held that the omissions to mention some of the kismats in the notice under Section 6 was an irregularity, and further that the understatement of the Government revenue in the sale proclamation was also an irregularity. He was of opinion that the first named irregularity, namely, the omission to mention some of the kismats in the notice under Section 6 resulted in substantial injury to the plaintiff and accordingly set aside the sale.3. The defendant purchaser has preferred this appeal.4. It is contended on his behalf that the ground upon which the sale has been set aside was not specified in the ground of appeal to the Commissioner, nor was it mentioned in the plaint in the present suit, and that being so, the sale cannot be set aside.5. Having regar...
Srimati Siva Kumari Debi Vs. Rai Biswambhar Roy Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.532
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover money lent on a hand-note executed by the defendant. The only question that was argued in the Court of first Appeal and the only question that has been argued, here is whether a payment of Re. 1 on the 14th Chait 1318 and a payment of another sum of Re. 1 on the 2nd Baisakh 1320 were payments on account of interest so as to give a fresh starting point under the provisions of Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is not disputed that when the payment was made, there was no express declaration as to whether the sum should be treated as payment on account of interest or payment on account of principal. But the facts found by the District Judge are these: that the 14th Chait 1318 was the Ramnavami day of that year and the 2nd Baisakh 132C was the Ramnavami day of that year. He has further found that in the case of money-lenders at the place in question the Ramnavami day is the beginning of the new year. He has fu...
Husan Mea Bara Bhuia and ors. Vs. Hazi Naun Mea Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1050,46Ind.Cas.796
1. In these appeals, as we understand the judgment of the District Judge, his finding is that the title of the plaintiffs was not challenged until the year 1909 or 1910. Applying then the provisions of Article 120 of the Limitation Act to the case, we find that the learned Judge is right in his conclusion that the suit was not time-barred. It has also been suggested before us that the District Judge is in error in stating that the plaintiffs' title and possession up to 1900 was admitted. If that be a mistake, the proper course for the defendants-appellants to take was to apply for a review of judgment. In this view these appeals are dismissed with costs....
Bibi Kachhirannessa Chowdhurani Vs. Hem Charan Kasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1033(1),47Ind.Cas.11
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned District Judge of Dinajpur, dated the 24th June 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage security. The mortgage was one that secured an advance of Rs. 49 with interest at the rate of three pice per rupee per month. There was a proviso in the mortgage bond for capitalizing the interest in arrear with annual rests. It may be admitted that the interest is heavy. The view that the learned Judges of the Courts below have taken is this: That the proviso for capitalizing the interest in arrear was obtained by undue influence. There are many reasons why such a point should not have been decided. First of all, the mortgagor or the representative of the mortgagor denied the mortgage. Secondly, no particulars of the alleged undue influence were stated as required by Order VI, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, and, if that had been pleaded and the particulars given, the plaintiff mi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »