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.
Mahamed Keramut Ulla Miah and anr. Vs. Keamutulla Meah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.886
1. These four appeals have been heard together as were the three suits in the lower Court out of which they arise. The principal appeal is Appeal No. 11 of 1915 arising out of Suit No. 275 of 1913. The parties to this litigation are all either the direct descendants or married to the direct descendants of one Damu, who died about, 1870 A. D, He left two sons Enat and Kismat. Kismat died in 1S89 leaving a widow, four sons and a daughter who are defendants Nos. 1--6 in the principal suit. The eldest son's name is Kismat and that of the daughter Nurjahannessa. Damu's elder son Enat died on the 2nd May 1902. By his first wife Budhimonnessa, who predeceased him, Enat had a son and a daughter. The son, Hefazatulla, died in February 1905 leaving two widows, Nurjahannessa (defendants No. 5), the above mentioned daughter of Kismat, and Monjudanessa (pro forma defendant No. 9) who has Bold her interest in her husband's property to other members of the family and gone to live in her father's vill...
Rajani Kanta Pal Vs. Kedar Nath Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.190
1. In this case it appears that in execution of a money decree obtained by a third party as against the tenant of a certain holding or tenure, that tenure or holding was sold to the present petitioner on the 13th November 1913. The landlord has refused to recognise the purchaser as a tenant, on the ground that the holding is in fact a nontransferable occupancy holding. The petitioner-purchaser's contention is that this is a permanent under tenure and, therefore, transferable. In the year 1917 to recover rents that had accrued due after the sale to the present petitioner in November 1913 the landlord brought a suit against his old tenant and obtained a decree ex parte. In execution of that decree he now seeks to have the property sold. The present petitioner preferred an objection to the executing Court contending that though the decree was in form a rent-decree, yet by reason of the fact that it had been brought against a person who had no present interest in the tenancy it was merely ...
Hazarimull Shohanlal Vs. Satish Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal331
Chaudhuri, J.1. The plaintiff firm claims to be the owner of 25 Baranagore Jute shares, being shares Nos. 51064 to 51088. These shares are now registered in the books of the Company in the name of Shohanlal, who is one of the partners of the plaintiff firm.2. The plaintiffs bought these shares from the defendant firm of Lalchand Premsook on the 7th May 1917 and paid for then at Rs. 87-8 per share. The defendant firm at the time of the sale made over to the plaintiff firm the certificate for the said shares and also a blank transfer deed signed by one Jugal Chandra Roy, whose name appeared up to the 11th May 1917 in the books of the said Company, as the registered owner of the said shares. After the purchase by them the plaintiff firm got the transfer in the name of Shohanlal, on the 12th May 1917. These shares were purchased by the defendant Satis Chandra Ghose in February 1917. In or about April 1917, a person calling himself Upendra Nath Mukherjee came and proposed, to him that he wo...
Roopchand Jankidas Vs. the National Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal342
Chaudhuri, J.1. In this case the plaintiff firm purchased 25 Kelvin. Jute shares on the 2nd November, 1916, from the defendant firm of Baijnath Champalall. Baijnath Champalall had bought them from Mungiram Banger & Co. who had purchased them from one Sham Das Sil who in his turn had purchased them from one Ashutosh Ghosh on the 1st November 1916. Before Ashutosh Ghosh obtained possession of these shares, they belonged to the National Bank of India who are defendants in this action. The Bank purchased them for one of their constituents through their brokers, Place Siddons and Gough. The purchase was made about the end of October 1916. Following the rule in the Bank, these shares were made over to the officer in charge of their Safe Custody Department. It is also the practice of the Bank to get the shares registered in the Company in the name of their constituents on whose behalf they are purchased. With that object these shares were made over by Ross, the officer then in charge of the S...
Roop Chand Jankidas Vs. the National Bank of India, Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.975
Asutosh Chaudhuri, J.1. In this case the plaintiff firm purchased 25 Kelvin Jute shares on the 2nd November 1916 from the defendant firm of Baijnath Champalal. Baijnath Champalal bought them from Mungiram Banger and Co., who purchased them from one Shamdas Sil, who in his turn purchased them from [one Asutosh Ghose on the 1st November 1916. Before Asutosh Ghose obtained possession of these shares, they belonged to the National Bank of India, who are defendants in this action. The Bank purchased them for one of their constituents through their brokers, Place, Siddons and Gough. The purchase was made about the end of October 1916, Following the rule in the Bank these shares were made over to the officer in charge of their safe custody department. It is also the practice of the Bank to get the shares registered in the Company in the name of their constituents on whose behalf they are purchased. With that object these shares were made over by Ross, the officer then in charge of the safe cu...
Hazarimul Shohanlal Vs. Satish Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal546,48Ind.Cas.966
Asutosh Chaudhuri, J.1. The plaintiff firm claims to be the owner of 25 Baranagore Jute shares, being shares Nos. 51064 to 51088. These shares are now registered in the books of the Company in the name of Shohanlal, who is one of the partners of the plaintiff firm. The plaintiffs bought these shares from the defendant firm of Lalchand Prem sookh on the 7th May 1917 and paid for them at Rs. 87-8-0 per share. The defendant firm at the time of the sale made over to the plaintiff firm the certificate for the said shares and also a blank transfer deed signed by one Jugal Chandra Roy, whose name appeared upto the 11th May 1917 in the books of the said Company as the registered owner of the said shares. After the purchase by them the plaintiff firm got the transfer in the name of Shohanlal on the 12th May 1917. These shares were purchased by the defendant Satish Chandra Ghosh in February 19l7. In or about April 1917 a person calling himself Upendra Nath Mukerjee came and proposed to him that ...
Mahomed Renu Meah Vs. Srimati Sabida Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.128
1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the daughters and the principal defendant is the son of one Mahomad Ashan Khalifa deceased. Mohamad Ashan Khalifa died on 3rd Kartic 1314 leaving a Will, dated 1st Kartic of that year. Probate of this Will was taken out by his son--the defendant who is the appellant before us. The principal terms of the Will were that this defendant was appointed the sole executor and was to be in possession and to manage the whole of the property left by his father, the net income of the property, after deducting Rs. 6 per month to be paid to the manager, was to be divided amongst all the heirs according to their legal shares and none of the heirs was allowed to transfer any part of the property in any way, nor was the property to be liable for their debts. The executor was to keep accounts and to render them to Court and if the executor died, his sons were to be made executors. The appellant took out Probate of this Will as executor and has been in possession of the...
Bama Sundari Dasya Vs. Kiran Chandra Alias Harabllash Sikdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal322,49Ind.Cas.497
1. This appeal is against an Order made under the provisions of Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, and the only, question that arises is whether a certain application for execution is burred by the provisions of Section 48(1)(b) of the said Code.2. It appears that in the year 1901 a decree was passed for the payment of a certain sum of money, the said sum to be paid in four equal instalments, the first becoming payable in September 1902 and the other three in February 1904, 1903 and 1906 respectively. As a matter of fact after this decree nothing has been paid.- The present application was made on the 12th February 1916.: On that dale under the provisions of Section 48-(1) (6) the instalment that became due -in 'September 1902 was clearly barred. The question is, whether the remaining three instalments are also barred. The decree itself is not forthcoming, and as ' to the contents- thereof the two Courts below had to proceed first on an entry in the register of civil suits -and an appli...
JalaluddIn Peshawari Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.813
1. This Rule was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence pissed upon him should not be set aside on the ground specified as ground (c) in the petition. Ground (c) is in there terms: 'For that the whole trial was irregular and invalid inasmuch as the junior officer Mr. R.K. Mukerjee was not legally competent to send up this case to the Magistrate'. The petitioner, it appears, has been convicted and sentenced under Section 46 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. Clause (a) of Section 83 of the Act lays down that no Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence referred to in Section 46 except on his own knowledge or suspicion, or on the complaint or report of an Excise Officer or an officer empowered in this behalf by the Local Government. Now, the only complaint or report which we can find in this case is the document marked Exhibit A. The heading is ''Report of serious case of section E Town on the l0th day o...
Satyendra Narayan Bagchi and ors. Vs. Sashi Bhusan Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.448
1. The plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to establish their Lakheraj title to a certain tank. Both the lower Courts held that this Lakheraj title had not been proved but that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving a title by adverse possession. It is contended on behalf of the appellants, first, that on the suit as framed the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree, and, secondly, that the facts found are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that the possession of the plaintiffs was adverse.2. As regards the first point, the learned Pleader for the appellants has addressed an able and interesting argument, taking us through a number of reported cases commencing with the case of Bijoya, Debia V. Bydonath Deb 24 W.R. 444 and ending with the case of Ram Chandra Sil v. Ramanmani Dasi 36 Ind. Cas. 890 : 20 C.W.N. 773 at. P. 785. We do not consider it necessary to discuss the point how far the plaintiffs can succeed on a title by adverse possession that has not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »