Kolkata Court July 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.
Kanchani Bewa Alias Kandani Bewa Vs. Jadub Paramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.971
1. On the authority of the decisions reported as Musammat Hafizan v. Abdul Karim 12 C.W.N. 163 : 7 C.L.J. 312 and Khemraj Shrikrishna Das v. Kisanlala Surajmal 42 Ind. Cas. 67 : 42 B. 5 : 19 Bom. L.R. 771 we make this Rule absolute and set aside the order against which it is directed. We make no order as to costs....
Jadupati Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Kahetra Nath Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1056,48Ind.Cas.445
1. In the present case the defendant made a deposit, of rent under Section 61(a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, alleging that he had tendered the money to the landlord who had refused to receive it. This deposit was made on 24th September 1913 corresponding with 8th Assin 1320 and was for the rent due in Assin 1320. The plaint in the present suit was preferred by the landlord for, this rent on 1st November 1913 and the landlord had not then notice of the deposit. Both the lower Courts have held that the statement made by the tenant that he made a tender of the rent to the landlord was false, and that, as he was not entitled to make a deposit under Section 61, the landlord's suit for rent should be decreed as if no deposit had been made. Before us it is contended that as the Court accepted the deposit and granted a receipt under Section 62, that receipt operated as an acquittance for the amount of rent payable by the tenant and that consequently at the time the suit was brought there was no...
F.P. Nalladaroo and Co. Vs. Hari Kissen Rathi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.961
1. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Allahabad Court in the case of Lalta Prasad v. Ram Karan 32 Ind. Cas. 419 : 30 M.L.J. 323 : 20 C.W.N. 329 :3 L.W. 210 : 19 M.L.T. 176 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 150 : 14 A.L.J. 217 : 23 C.L.J. 348 : 18 Bom. L.R. 387 : 9 Bur. L.T. 1 : 43 C. 523 : 8 L.B.R. 536 (P.C.) and also to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Debi Bakhsh Singh v. Hahib Shah (1893) A.C. 170 at. P. 177 : 62 L.J.P. 68 : 1 R. 336 : 68 L.T. 546 41 W.R. 600 and, on a consideration of these rulings, we are of opinion that the order of the District Judge is not without jurisdiction. We accordingly discharge this Rule with costs, hearing fee two gold mohurs.2. Let the record be sent down at once....
Kishori Mohan Talapatra Vs. Osi Pramanick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal861,48Ind.Cas.536
1. The plaintiff in this suit is common manager on behalf of Zamindars and Putnidars owning shares totalling 14-annn 1-ganda in an estate. The pro forma defendants own the remaining 1-anna 19-gandas share. He brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to recover rents from the principal defendants for the last three kists of the year 1317 B.S., for the whole of the years 1318 and 1319 B.S. and for the first three kists of the year 1320 B.S. He claimed Rs. 757-11-9 as his share of the rent and in the alternative asked that a decree might be passed for Rs. 862-14-3 for the 16-annas rent, awarding him his share. He was granted a decree for rent of the three kists of the year 1320 B.S. only, the decree being for the 16-annas rent for this period. He appealed without success to the Subordinate Judge of Pabna and has now preferred this second appeal to this Court, his contention being that his claim for rents of the years 1317, 1318 and 1319 should have been allowed.2. As regards the a...
iswar DalIn and ors. Vs. Girindra Kumar Nag, Minor, by His Father and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.726
1. The plaintiff in these suits is a purchaser of an 8-anna share of a certain estate. He brought the 16 suits out of which these appeals arise and others to recover his share of rent from the principal defendants making their co-sharers pro forma defendants. The first Court dismissed the suits, on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and the principal defendants. The lower Appellate Court has granted the plaintiff a decree for his share of the arrears of rent claimed against the pro forma defendants, on the finding that the' full rent had been paid to the pro forma defendants by the principal defendants. In our opinion, on the facts found this decision is justified. It appears from the plaint that the plaintiff clearly asked in the alternative for a decree against the pro forma defendants, if it was found that they had realized the rent due to the plaintiff's share. It is contended that the prayer for this relief could not be joined to t...
The Hon'ble Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandy, trustee to the Estate of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal500,49Ind.Cas.248
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The plaintiff's case was that the land originally belonged to the Jote of one Hara Chandra Hatui. The defendant denied the plaintiff's title and also set up his own Lakheraj right to 2 bighas out of the 3 bighas of the land in suit. In the Court of first instance the plaintiff obtained a decree. This decree was reversed by the lower Appellate Court on the finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish his title. The lower Appellate Court also apparently found the Lakheraj title of the defendant to 2 bighas out of the 3 bighas established. Before us it is contended that the issue whether the land in suit was originally the Jote of Hara Chandra Hatui is res judicata between the parties.2. It appears that in 1907 the plaintiff sued the father of the present defendant for rent of the land in suit and that this suit' was dismissed on the finding that though this land was a Jote of Hara Chandra Hatui, the relationship of landlord and tena...
Deutsch Asiatische Bank Vs. Hiralal Burdhan and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.122
Asutosh Chaudhuri, J.1. This is a suit which has been instituted by the Official Liquidator on behalf of the plaintiff Bank. The Bank, which is a German Bank, was closed on or about the 4th August 1914 immediately upon the declaration of War between England and Germany. This Liquidator was appointed on the 22nd December 1914, but the terms of appointment did not give him express power to sue. He was by that order authorised 'to liquidate the assets', which can hardly be said to include the right to sue, but by an order made on the 1st November 1915 express power was given to him to sue and this suit was instituted on 9th May 1918. It is based on four on-demand promissory notes, one dated 4th June 1914, another dated 11th June 1914 and two notes dated 30th June 1914, and would, therefore, be barred if the ordinary rule of limitation applied. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that time began to run against the plaintiff Bank from the dates of promissory notes, and that under Sectio...
Mukunda Lal Roy and anr. Vs. Srimati Bhabasundari Debya Chowdhurani an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.922
1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Rangpur should not be set aside. The judgment and decree in question were passed in an appeal against a decision of the Munsif of Rangpur in a suit for rent. The Munsif in question had final powers under Section 153(6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the amount claimed in the rent suit wak Rs. 19-11-0 only. The question on which this Rule depends is, whether any appeal lay to the District Judge. The point was raised in his Court and he held that the decision of the suit involved a question of title or of the variation of the rate of rent. To this decision we are unable to agree. All that the Munsif decided was that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties in respect of the Jama for which rent was claimed in this suit. For authority that the decision on such a point is not sufficient to make the proviso to Section 153 applicable, we ...
Digendra Chandra Basak Vs. Ramani Mohan Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.333
Teunon, J.1. This is an appeal against an order made or purporting to be made by the District Judge of Dacca in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. By this order under Section 43 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, he sentences the appellant to three months' simple imprisonment on the ground that he had fraudulently concealed certain articles of property. It appears that on the 11th November 1914 the appellant applied to the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge of Dacca, invested with jurisdiction in certain classes of cases under the proviso to Section 3 of the Act, to be adjudged an insolvent. On the 1st May 1915, notwithstanding the opposition of 5 of the 7 creditors mentioned in the schedule to the application, an order of adjudication was made and a Receiver appointed for the properties of the insolvent.2. Thereafter the Receiver enquired into certain allegations made by the creditors to the effect that the insolvent had concealed his yautuk properties, that is, the gifts mad...
Sheikh Abdul Hakim and ors. Vs. Adyata Chandra Das Dalal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal593,49Ind.Cas.63
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage bond said to have been executed by one Ashgar Sheikh deceased, the father of the defendant No. 1, and Rahatan Bibi, the defendant No. 2, in favour of one Hari Das Dalal.2. The plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants were members of a joint Hindu family, the share of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 in the mortgage being 8 annas, that of the pro forma defendants Nos. 5 to 7, 4 annas; and the pro forma defendant Nos. 8 to 12. who were subsequently joined as plaintiffs had a 4 annas share.3. The bond was in favour of Hari Das Dalal as representing the Dalal family.4. The plaintiffs' case was that when the Dalal family separated, Sastiram Das Dalai, the father of the defendants Nos. 5 to 7, obtained possession of the bond in suit, and in collusion with the mortgagor defendants withheld the bond so that the plaintiffs might not be able to bring a suit upon it. Hence the plaintiffs brought the suit upon a certified copy of the' bond. The defendan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »