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.
Srimati Kamini Sundari Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Abdul Halim Moulavi an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.420
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for assessment of rent on a certain tenure which is spoken, of as a nim howla. The Court of first appeal dismissed the suit on two grounds, namely, that the suit was barred by reason of the provisions of Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and, secondly, that it was barred by the rule of limitation to be found in Article 130 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act.2. It appears that in respect of the area1 within which this nim howla lies a Record of Rights was prepared under the provisions of Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act and was finally published on the 18th May 1906. In that Record of Rights this tenure was entered as one in respect of which at the moment no rent was paid but as one liable to pay rent. Thereupon the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, who are co-sharer landlords of the howla, brought a suit under the provisions of Section 106 of the Act. In that suit they prayed to have it declared that the entry in the Record of Rights...
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Hashmat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.558
1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendant No. 1 against the decision of the learned District Judge of Noakhali, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Feni. The suit was brought to enforce specific performance of a contract to grant a lease. Two points have been raised before us in this appeal. The first is that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case having regard to the provisions of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant No. 1 is a Ruling Chief and he has sovereign powers and no authority has been obtained from the Government of India to maintain the present suit against him. Both in the primary Court and in the lower Appellate Court that point was deliberately abandoned by the Maharaja's representatives and their view was that they required a decision of the Court without approaching the Government of India for a consent to maintain the suit. The course was obviously right because in a trivial suit of this nature the total value of which is Rs. 75, it...
The Midnapore Zemindari Company, Limited Vs. Kristo Prosad Sukul and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.544
1. These appeals are preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the learned Special Judge of Midnapur, dated the 30th June 1917, modifying the decision of the Revenue Officer of the same place. The appeals arise out of proceedings instituted under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Three points have been taken in these appeals. The first point is that the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court should not have allowed a deduction of 10 per cent. on the measurement on the ground that the former measurement was not a scientific measurement. It is said that, as the rent was a rent per bigha, the learned Judge was not entitled to do that, I think the learned Judge was clearly entitled to do that. If the measurement was a local measurement, then the rent per bigha was also a rent per local bigha, and the Judge was clearly entitled to make a deduction of 10 per cent. Whether that is a proper and fair deduction, we need not consider. This is not a matter that comes before us i...
Pran Krishna Das and ors. Vs. Srimati Satibala Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.852
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 25th April 1916, modifying the decision of the Munsif of Patiya. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover possession of a tank with its banks. The first Court decreed the suit in full. The, lower Appellate Court decreed it with regard to a twelve-anna share of the tank with its banks and dismissed it with regard to the remaining four-annas share. The plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal with regard to this four-annas share.2. There were two brothers, Naba and Pranhari. Pranhari died having made a Will and appointing his brother Naba the executor. Having recited various terms in the Will, he authorized the executor in these terms: For all these, it may be necessary to mortgage, sell or let in ijara any portion of the properties and my brother will do it.' The question is whether that was a power to mortgage, sell or let in ijara any portio...
Aja Nasya Vs. Karimbaksh Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.816
1. This appeal must stand dismissed. The case has been before this Court on a former occasion. On that occasion a remand was made and the questions to be decided by the lower Court on remand were definitely laid down. It is no use for the appellant now to try to challenge the remand order. We must take the order as it stands. On remand, the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has come to conclusions of fact which are fatal to the plaintiff's case. In that view, we must dismiss the present appeal with costs....
Hrishikesh Singh Minor, by His Next Friend Surendra Nath Palit Vs. Lak ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal860(1),46Ind.Cas.384
1. This appeal must be dismissed. On the first point the learned Judge adopted the view that the rate was a penal rate and he reduced the rate both of simple interest and of compound interest. It is now said that the whole provision must go out of the mortgage-deed because it is found to be a penalty. That is obviously not so.2. The other case that the suit is barred by limitation is not proved. The suit was to enforce a mortgage for Rs. 199 and the interest payable in paddy. It is quite dear that the suit was a suit to enforce a charge of money on immoveable property. That being so, it was not barred by limitation.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Khirode Chandra Ghose and anr. Vs. Midnapore Zemindary Company, Limite ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1028(2),46Ind.Cas.507
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against the decision of the learned District Judge of Midnapore, dated the 25th May 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Gorbetta. The case is a perfectly short and simple one. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a piece of land let out on lease to the predecessor of the defendants-appellants. The only question is whether on the terms of that lease in the events that have happened the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession. The lease is in a very few words. It states that the lessee being desirous to excavate a tank and having filed an application therefor, according to the desire of the lessor 7 bighas 18 cottas of land is granted within certain boundaries and that the lessee, for the benefit of men and cattle, digging up a tank and dedicating it with a view to please God, is to enjoy the same from generation to generation with great felicity. The view of the plaintiff Company is this: That this w...
Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Baikuntha Chandra Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.474
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a rent suit against the decision of the learned Officiating District Judge of Tipperah, dated the 23rd September 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Kasba. The case is this. The defendant purchased the property at a sale in execution of a rent decree which the present plaintiff had obtained against a former tenant, and it may be taken that the plaintiff is probably responsible for the form of the sale proclamation. The property was sold on the footing that the rent was Rs. 28 odd. As a matter of fact, the rent had been enhanced at the date of the sale to Rs. 67 odd. The plaintiff, therefore, sued for rent at the rate of Rs. 67 odd. It is said that the property having been sold as being held at a rent of Rs. 28 odd, the plaintiff was precluded from suing the defendant for a larger rent. The question whether he is precluded or not depends on a variety of circumstances and those circumstances are, first of all, if the defendan...
Beni Madhab Kundu Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal207
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this mutter the point has been taken by the Jearned vakil for the appellant, that 'the proceedings at the trial were vitiated by the fact that after the Judge's charge was finished--' I am now using the words of paragraph (12) of the petition--'the members of the jury were found walking about 'in. the compound of the Court, and persons other than 'a juror were seen to speak to the members of the 'jury.' Upon that being drawn to the attention of the Court, and the appeal having been admitted, apparently the learned Judges who admitted the appeal asked for an explanation with regard to this matter, and the learned Sessions Judge has reported as follows: 'Just 'after the jury delivered their verdict in this case, the ' learned vakil for the defence drew my attention to 'the fact that certain jurors had been seen out of their 'retiring room and talking to persons other than jurors 'after their retirement and before their return. J drew 'up a proceeding and questioned e...
Gopal Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Kshetra Mohun Bhuia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.195
1. This is a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif, dated the 9th February 1918, should not be set aside. What happened was this: There was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants. That gave rise to a suit. Better counsels prevailed and the suit was referred by the Court to the arbitration of a certain gentleman by the consent of both parties. The terms of the reference provided that the arbitrator should determine the case after hearing the evidence and that, if one of the parties failed to appear before him, he should have power to proceed to hear the reference ex parte. The plaintiff on the date fixed for the trial did not turn up, although the arbitrator waited for two hours. Then instead of proceeding to hear the case ex parte, the arbitrator considered that he had power to deal with the matter as a Civil Court had, if the plaintiff was in default. That is not so. The arbitrator ought to have proceeded to hear the evidence of the other sid...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »