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.
Dinabandhu Patra Vs. Sanatan Dandapat and Bikram Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.624
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond. The execution of the bond was admitted by defendant No. 1, the sole executant. Defendant No. 2 is a purchaser of a part of the mortgaged property. He alone contested the suit, his main objection. being that the bond was invalid for want of consideration; This point was decided in his favour by the first Court; bat that finding has been reversed by the lower Appellate Court and the suit has been decreed against both the defendants.2. As regards the issue of payment of consideration, the finding of the lower Appellate Court is final in second appeal, but it is now contended that the suit should be dismissed on the ground that there has been no proof of execution of the bond or that it has bean attested according to law.3. As regards the question of execution, this, it is stated, was admitted in the written statement of defendant No. 1. It also appears to have never been denied by defendant No. 2 and farther, the defendant No. 2 in h...
Sankar Nath Mukherji Vs. Biddutlata Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.295
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises' out of an application for Probate of the Will of one Bhayaharini Debi, dated the 2nd Agrahan l288.2. By her Will she appointed her husband's brother's sons Girindra and Harendra, her daughter Lambodari and her husband Tara Nath, her executors. It was also provided in the Will that Sankar Nath (the appellant), who was the son of another brother of Tara Nath, when he attained majority, would be able to act as executor: and that in case Tara Nath, was willing and able to act as sole executor, he would be entitled to do so. Bhayaharini died two days after the execution of the Will: and as Tara Nath was not willing to apply for Probate, Girindra, Harendra and Lambodari applied for, and obtained, Probate in January 1882 and went on administering the estate until April 1S88 when Tara Nath having applied for Probate, he was appointed executor.3. In the year 1893, Girindra, Harendra and Narendra as also Sankar Nath and his two minor brothers represented...
Emperor Vs. Chhanoo Lal Bania
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.783
Teunon, J.1. In this case the accused was tried on charges under Sections 395, 412 and 411, Indian Penal Code. The trial was by Jury in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Howrah and the Jury having by a majority of 4 to 1 returned a verdict of not guilty the case comes before us on a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge under the provisions of Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The case for the prosecution was that on the night of the 22nd July 1917 a dacoity took place in the house of one Nandji at Shalimar and that at about 11 a. M. on the 24th July five of the silver articles stolen in the course of the dacoity were found in the possession of the accused in his shop at 401/1A, Upper Chitpur Road, Calcutta.3. A professing accomplice Fazaldin was examined to say that on the 23rd July at about 2 p. m. he had sold the articles to the accused for a sum of Rs. 40. An Inspector, a watch constable and two' search witnesses were examined to prove the finding ...
Sreemati Thandamoyee Dasi Vs. Srimati Goonamani Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1073,47Ind.Cas.506
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiff, now appellant, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for the purpose of having an award passed by certain arbitrators filed. The plaintiff instituted a criminal ease on 7th August 1913 against the defendants making various charges, the principal one being that they had persuaded her to execute a document which she meant to be a benami document but which they subsequently treated as a genuine deed of sale. The Magistrate referred the case to a gentleman living in the neighbourhood for enquiry, with the suggestion that perhaps he would be able to effect a settlement between the parties. On 31st August an ekrarnama was drawn up by which the parties agreed to refer their difference to arbitrators. They informed the Magistrate of this, and on 1st October the complaint was dismissed. The result of the arbitrators' meeting was an award in favour of the plaintiff, and it is this award that she now seeks to get enforced. The main defence taken by the def...
Jatra Mohan Sen Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal520,52Ind.Cas.435
1. No one appearing to show cause, we make the Rule absolute. No costs. If the sum of Rs. 20-4-0 has been paid, it will be returned....
Fazar Ali Mistri and ors. Vs. Amir Buksh Mian and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.334
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. One Jainnddi held a kalmi raiyati under defendant No. 3; on the death of Jainuddi his son Munsur Ali held the ruiyati. In 1912 defendant No. 3 sued Munsur Ali for rent of the holding and in execution of the decree granted to him he caused the holding to be sold and bought it himself. After his purchase he settled a portion of it with the plaintiffs who are his sons, and they have brought the suit to eject the defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. The defence is that Munsur Ali sold a part of the jote, the part in dispute, to Asrab Ali in 1899, that Asrab Ali sold it to Takub Ali in 1904 and Yakub Ali to Fazar Ali defendant No. 1 in 1808, and Fazar Ali to Abdul Kabir defendant No. 2 in 1908 and that Fazar Ali has taken a barga lease of it from Abdul Kabir.3. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the lease to the plaintiffs was made bona fide, that the raiyati was one at a fixed rate of rent, that defendant No. 3 did not recognize th...
Srimati Ishani Dasi and anr. Vs. Rajendranath Jash and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal36,48Ind.Cas.303
Walmsley, J.1. The facts of the case from which these appeals arise are as follows. Two brothers, Kartik Rakshit and Ganesh Rakshit, borrowed Rs. 500 on mortgage from the wife of one Asakrit Charidra Chowdhuri in Chaitra 1313 B.S. in order to pay off debts due to various creditors. They mortgaged all their property in this deed. In the following year Kartik died, leaving two daughters who are still minors and are the plaintiffs. In Sraban 1317 B.S. no part of the debt on the mortgage had been paid off and Ganesh entered into a fresh arrangement; he executed two kat kobalas in favour of the same lady, one for Rs. 100 and covering 2 bighas of land, and another for Rs. 400 in respect of 7 bighas and a quarter and a kistibandi bond for the sum of Rs. 256. By the kat kobalas the principal of the original mortgage was satisfied, and the kistibandi bond was for the unpaid interest that had accrued. Under the terms of the kat kabalas the creditor was to remain in possession until the sums ment...
ismail Sarkar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.846
1. In this case the three appellants before us, Ismail, Meher and Amir Sheikh, have been convicted under Section 366 and Section 376, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each to five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The trial was by Jury in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh. By a majority of four to one the Jury brought in a verdict of guilty and the learned Judge, though not agreeing with the verdict, accepted it inasmuch as for a reason given he was unable to say that it was perverse. We may then at the outset say that it is no longer the law that before making a reference the Judge must be satisfied that the verdict is perverse. It is sufficient that he should be clearly of opinion that a reference is necessary for the ends of justice, and possibly the Judge did not mean to say more than this, that his dissent was not so complete as to enable him to arrive at any such clear opinion.3. The case for the prosecution was that at about 1 to 2 a.m., on the night of the ...
Giribala Dasi and ors. Vs. Kudrutulla Paramanick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal962,47Ind.Cas.576
Walmsley J.1. The plaintiff, now appellant, brought the suit, from which this appeal arises, to eject the defendants from a holding on the ground that the holding is an occupancy raiyati, which cannot be transferred without the consent of the landlord, and that the defendants by their purchase from the landlord's registered Tenant had acquired no title.2. The defendants replied that the holding was one at a fixed rate of rent and that they had with the consent of. the landlord's naib divided the holding into three equal parts, each of which bore a third of the former rent of the whole. They also asserted that the suit was brought by a dishonest naib and without the knowledge of the landlord.3. The first Court found that the holding was an ordinary occupancy holding, that is, a holding which cannot be transferred without the consent of the landlord, and the defendants do not appear to have challenged this finding in the lower Appellate Court.4. Both Courts found that the suit had been i...
AzimuddIn Mandal and ors. Vs. Tara Sankar Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.638
Walmsley, J.1. These appeal are by the tenants and they arise out of proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs were the two landlords Tara Sankar and Kali Sankar. After the decision of the lower Appellate Court, Kali Sankar died leaving two sons, Asutosh a major and Sudhansu a minor. The appellants applied to have the heirs of Kali Sankar substituted and caused a notice to be issued to Asutosh calling upon him to show cause why he should not be appointed guardian of his minor brother. Asutosh did not appear. Orders were then passed by the Court that the Deputy Registrar should be appointed guardian of Sudhansu. Defendants failed to pay the costs of the Deputy Registrar, with the result that on 12th June 1918 a Bench of this Court ordered that the appeals should stand dismissed as against, the minor at the risk of the appellants. The only respondents, therefore, now before the Court are Tara Sankar, one of the original plaintiffs, and Asutosh, one of the tw...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »