Kolkata Court June 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.
Har Kumar Sen and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal981,47Ind.Cas.173
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs arising out of a suit for rent. The only question raised before us is whether the decree of the Subordinate Judge is right, based as it is on the principle of res judicata. The Judge has, however, not relied entirely on the question of res judicata but, on the evidence, has found that the plaintiffs' contention must fail. On the question of resjudicata the authorities of this Court are not entirely unanimous. There are no doubt cases to be found taking more or less contrary views. The tendency, however, of the more recent decisions appears to be that when the question of the annual jama has been raised in a suit and decided, it will be regarded as resjudicata in later suits for rent of the same holding. We need not, however, go into that question now, because in this case the Judge has distinctly found that even if the previous judgment does not operate as resjudicata, it is good evidence as to the rate of rent. That evidence he weighs against the...
Kamal Baidya and anr. Vs. Ganesh Chandra Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.829
1. This was a suit in electment, and the only question was whether the defendants had acquired occupancy rights in the land which would protect them from eviction. The lower Appellate Court found that though the defendants had a homestead in the village for over 30 years, they had no land in the village other than the land on which they entered under the Kabuliyat in 1906 and that, therefore, they had not acquired any such rights. Before they could become settled raiyats in the village they would have to be raiyats, and that they entirely failed to prove. Section 182 of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not help the appellants. The appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Kanailal Kundu Vs. Nitya Saran Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal916,47Ind.Cas.938
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Kanailal Kundu arising out of a suit for contribution brought by him against a number of defendants. We are now only concerned with Gopal Das Mukherjee defendant No. 5 or rather, as that defendant is dead, his legal representatives, and with Mohini Mohan Mukherjee, the defendant No. 6.2. Gopal Das Mukherjee defendant No. 5 was expressly exempted from personal liability under the decree in favour of Akhoy Kumari Debi passed by this Court, and the learned Pleader for the appellant admits that he cannot press the appeal as against the representatives of this defendant, more particularly as Gopal Das Mukherjee had no further interest left in the properties charged.3. As against defendant No. 6 it is urged that he was made personally liable by the decree of the lower Appellate Court in favour of Akhoy Kumari Debi and that he is liable to contribute. The answer to the plaintiff's suit for contribution against this defendant is that the decree of the Cour...
Sergeant A.R. Milton Vs. Mr. and Mrs. Sherman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.701
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case a Rule was issued at the instance of Sergeant R. Milton calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence passed on the petitioner should not be set aside on grounds 1 and 2 mentioned in the petition. The grounds referred to are (1) that upon the facts of this case no offence under Section 417, Indian Penal Code, has been made out against the petitioner, and (2) that the learned Magistrate's judgment is vitiated by the admission of evidence subsequent to the alleged cheating, and the said evidence has materially influenced the learned Magistrate's decision.2. Now, this is a case out of the ordinary; and, the facts may be shortly stated.3. It appears that before the 23rd of March of this year the petitioner had become engaged to a girl called Mildred Dorothy Sherman, the daughter of Mr. P.J. Sherman, who lived at 10 Sadder Street. Apparently, either on the 23rd of March or shortly before the 23rd of ...
Bejoy Krishna Nandy and anr. Vs. Maharaj Kumar Dharendra Krishna Deb B ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1094,47Ind.Cas.512
1. This appeal must stand dismissed. Clearly there is no right of appeal in this case, as is shown by the authorities of the cases of Deoki Nandan Singh v. Bansi Singh 10 Ind. Cas. 371 : 14 C.L.J. 35 : 16 C.W.N. 124 and Panch Duar Thakur v. Mani Raut 17 Ind. Cas. 88 : 16 C.W.N. 970. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs-two gold mohurs....
Sheikh Hushmat and ors. Vs. Sheikh Jamir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal325(2),52Ind.Cas.558
Charles Chitty, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendant possession of a plot of land measuring 10 cottas under the following circumstances. In 1304 Jaru, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, borrowed Rs. 100 from the defendant and by way of security mortgaged two plots of land measuring 6 cottas and 10 cottas respectively. The arrangement was that the defendant should hold possession of both plots for 8 years, i.e., until 1313 in full satisfaction of the debt and interest. The defendant's case was that in 1306 the parties came to an arrangement, whereby Jaru sold to the defendant the 10 cotta plot for Rs. 98 and took back the 6 cotta plot, the mortgage being thus paid off. The conveyance of the 10 cotta plot to the defendant was by an unregistered kobala. The Munsif declined to regard this document as evidence and decreed the plaintiffs' suit, which was filed on the 8th January 1914 (1320) within 12 years from 1312, the original date fixed for the ...
Jogendra Nath Bhunya Vs. Mohindra Ghora and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal964,47Ind.Cas.973
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Midnapur, dated the 20th November 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Tamluk. The plaintiff brought the suit for possession of two plots of land on establishment of his title by purchase. Both the Courts below have dismissed the 'Suit. It appears that one Krishna Majhi had two wives Sundari and Putti Dasi. One of the two plots sued for Krishna Majhi purchased in the name of Sundari from one Purnima Dasi. The other plot Krishna Majhi apparently acquired himself. Sundari predeceased Krishna Majhi. On Krishna Majhi's death, he left him surviving Putti Dasi as his heiress and a sister whose son the defendant No. 3 is the vendor to the plaintiff. On the 4th June 1903, the defendant No. 3 relinquished in favour of Putti Dasi both the plots now sued for for a consideration of the defendant No. 3 receiving relinquishment from Putti Dasi of all her interest in the other plots. Su...
Narasingha Ban Goswami Vs. Prolhadman Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal455
Chitty and Walmsley, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce a mortgage of a pala or turn of worship owned and held by the defendant at the temple of the deity 'Dhakeswari' in a 2 1/2 anna share. The mortgage was dated 29th October 1902, the due date for payment being 30th April 1903. The plaintiff in his plaint alleged that Rs. 25 had been paid as interest on 12th October 1905. The suit was filed on 15th April 1915. The question of payment of interest was not gone into by the first Court inasmuch as 13th and 14th April 1915 were holidays. The suit was, therefore, within time if the period of limitation be taken as 12 years. It seems to have been assumed in both the Courts below that the period of limitation would be 12 years, so that in the District Judge's Court the question of limitation was not touched upon. In the grounds of appeal, however, to this Court, which have been filed by the defendant, this question was distinctly raised. The seventh ground is that the ...
Nagendra Nath Mazumdar and ors. Vs. Banwari Lal Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.970
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the learned District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 1st December 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Katwa. The plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and the other members of the village in which they reside for a, declaration of the right of the inhabitants of the village to the use or the village pathway lying to the east of the defendants' premises. The pathway claimed is said to be an ancient one. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit. In this appeal, the following points have been urged: First of all, it is said that a suit relating to a village pathway is governed by the provisions of Section 91, Code of Civil Procedure, relating to public nuisances. A village pathway is obviously not a public nuisance, nor are the public at large affected by the obstruction of the pathway which only the inhabitants of the particular village have the right to use. It is quite clear that Section 91, Code of Civil Procedu...
Ganesh Chandra Mohajan and ors. Vs. Srimati Beraja Sundari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.975
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 15th April 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif at South Rauzan. The suit was brought to recover possession on the allegation that the plaintiffs had a raiyati interest in the land. The plaintiffs alleged that they were raiyats under the Hagaris and that they and their predecessors had been in possession for more than forty years and that in 1913 the defendants dispossessed them. The defence was that the defendants purchased the property in execution of a rent decree in August 1912. They also alleged that the present suit was barred by Article 3 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is quite clear that the suit is not barred. In this case, it is found that the ouster of the plaintiffs was not by the landlord. The other cases cited were cases in which the real person ousting the tenant was the landlord acting in collusion with other persons. What is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »