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.
Narayan Chandra Poddar and ors. Vs. Keshab Lal Dhai Bhai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.493
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants against the decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 13th March 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Khatra. The plaintiffs brought the suit for redemption. The Judge has decreed redemption. The point made in this case is this: The plaintiffs mortgaged a four-anna share of a property by way of an usufructuary mortgage to the defendants' father in the year 1885. Contemporaneously with the mortgage-deed, the plaintiffs took a settlement of that share, that is, they became the tenants of the defendants at a rent corresponding to the interest due on the mortgage. The rent fell into arrear. Thereupon a rent suit was brought by (be mortgagees, a decree was obtained and, in contravention of Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, the equity of redemption was attached, brought to sale and purchased, by the mortgagees. Therefore, the question is, whether that sale was void or voidable and whether the defe...
Benimadhab Kundu and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal512,46Ind.Cas.513
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this matter the point has been taken by the learned 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 ware 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, I drew up a proceeding and questioned every on...
Kali Prasad Chatterjee Vs. Rash Behari Laik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.254
1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan modifying the decision of the Munsif of Assansole. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover khas possession of certain plots of land. The only plot we now consider in this appeal is plot No. 3 as the appeal is limited to that. The defendant No. 1 purchased a Touzi at a sale for arrears of revenue under Act XI of 1859, and the question is whether the plaintiffs in the present case have a protected interest within the meaning of the proviso to Section 37 of Act XI of 1859. Amongst the persons who have a protected interest are raiyats having rights of occupancy at fixed rents. An argument has been addressed to us that the right of occupancy must be ascertained with reference to the Bengal Tenancy Act and that, therefore, a raiyat at a fixed rate of rent cannot have a right of occupancy. We need not enter into a consideration of the matter, because there is a direct decisio...
Rai Charan Karmakar Vs. Sib Ram Parai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1007(2),46Ind.Cas.489
1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act are applicable. The parcel of land in question, it appears, is a homestead. But the defendant No. 6 through whom the plaintiff claims title, it has been found, was a Raiyat. That being so whether the homestead is or is not part of an agricultural holding, the Bengal Tenancy Act applies by virtue either of the general provisions of the Act or by virtue of the special provision to be found in Section 182.2. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs....
Pramatha Nath Mukhopadhya and anr. Vs. Chandra Sekhar Banerjee and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1004(2),46Ind.Cas.539
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by two of the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 5th October 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Bishunpur. The suit was brought by the two plaintiffs-appellants and the plaintiff No. 3 respondent to recover rent or rather it was instituted by the two appellants with the plaintiff respondent as a defendant. But as the case came to trial, this defendant was transferred to the category of the plaintiffs and the suit was tried as if brought by the three plaintiffs to recover rent from a tenant. It is common ground that one of the plaintiffs, that is, plaintiff No. 3 had ousted the defendant from the holding and so it is quite clear that as against the plaintiff No. 3 who had ousted the defendant, the rent was suspended during the period of ouster. But it is said that that cannot affect the appellants, the other two plaintiffs. The facts found are these. This was a joint letting to the tenant. The r...
Beni Madhab Chackrabutty and ors. Vs. Bhola Nath Majila and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1013,47Ind.Cas.8
1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against the decision of the learned Districts Judge of Burdwan, dated the 29th October 1914, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Kalna. The plaintiff sought in this case for a declaration that a kabuliyatt dated the 26th Sraban 1308 filed by the defendant No. 1 in rent suit No. 7 of 1909, and the rent decree passed thereon are null and void and inoperative and that the annual jama of Rs. 17 created by the said kabuliyat or the decree is false and fictitious, and further that the plaintiff is not bound to pay any rent to the defendant No. 1 in respect of the said annual jama of Rs. 17. Before us the case has been argued on two grounds: First of all limitation and secondly, res judicata. Taking the second point first it appears that the present appellant, the defendant No. 1, brought a suit against the plaintiff in this case to recover rent on the basis of the kabuliyat, and it is quite clear from the findings in that ease that the kabuliya...
Purna Chandra Kundoo Vs. the Port Commissioners of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal255,(1919)ILR46Cal56
Greaves, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants a sum of Rs. 644-1 in respect of the loss of three cases of files consigned to them by the steamship 'City of Delhi' from New York. I do not think that I need refer in detail to the agreed brief of correspondence, which is Ex. C. in this suit. But it appears from that correspondence that the plaintiffs were informed that the goods had never been landed. If that had been the case, the defendants in this suit would have been involved in no liability. But on further enquiry it appeared that the four cases of files consigned by the steamship 'City of Delhi' to the plaintiffs were in fact landed and placed in the Port Commissioners' warehouse. Of these four cases of files the plaintiffs received delivery of one case only' and the suit is brought with regard to the three cases of which the plaintiffs have never received delivery.2. I am satisfied upon the evidence before me that the three cases of files were in fac...
Babu Pallave Mandal and anr. and Vs. Akhoy Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.24
1. This appeal is preferred by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (the principal defendants) and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to restrain them from diverting the flow of gar and melon water across their lands on to the plaintiff's land. We are told that gar is water that has accumulated or been confined in some depression, and that melan is water flowing at random over land. It appears that for many years water accumulating on higher land has, at least in the rainy season, found its way down across lands of the pro forma defendants and the principal defendants on to the land of the plaintiff which lies below. The land of the principal defendants does not immediately adjoin that of the plaintiff but is separated therefrom by land of one or two other persons. The principal defendants have, it is found, recently stopped the flow of water on to land below their own and diverted it towards the east by cutting the ails between their land and that to the east which also belongs to them....
Ram Nath Ojah Vs. Natabar Maiti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.328
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 19th June 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Contai. The plaintiff sued for confirmation of possession on declaration of title. The dispute really is as to whether this land forms a portion of the plaintiff's nispe or the defendant's nispe. The first Court went into the matter both of possession and on the question of title, and if those matters had been considered by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, there would not have been much to say against his judgment. But what the learned Judge has done in this case is that he has neglected the question of possession altogether. He has not come to any conclusion one way or the other as to who is in possession of the land, and on the question of title he says that it is not proved, solely on the ground that the appellant's Pleader asked for a local enquiry to establish the identity of the land in di...
Purna Chandra Kundoo Vs. the Port Commissioner of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.58
Greaves, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants a sum of Rs. 644-1(sic)0 in respect of the loss of three cases of files consigned to them by the steamship 'City of Delhi' from New York. I do not think that I need refer in detail to the agreed brief of correspondence, which, is Exhibit 0 in this suit. But it appears from that correspondence that the plaintiffs were informed that the goods had never been landed. If that had been the case, the defendants in this suit would have been involved in no liability. But on further enquiry it appeared that the four cases, of files consigned by the steamship 'City of Delhi' to the plaintiffs were in fact landed and placed in the Port Commissioners' warehouse. Of these four cases of files the plaintiffs received delivery of one case only, and the suit is brought with regard to the three cases of which the plaintiffs have never received delivery. I am satisfied upon the evidence before roe that the three cases of files w...