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.
Bhusan Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Jahar Mal Bhutra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.733
Walmsley, J.1. The facts of this case are practically identical with the facts of the case of Nanji Koer v. Umatul Batul 13 Ind. Cas. 40 : 15 C.L.J. 653, and on the principles enunciated in that case the present appeal must be dismissed. It is suggested that we should regard that case' as wrongly decided; but I can see no reason for taking that view. The present appeal is dismissed with costs.Panton, J.2. I agree....
T.C. Tweedie Vs. Jogesh Chandra Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal452,51Ind.Cas.999
Richardson, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on the 29th March 1911 and judgment was pronounced by the Subordinate Judge of Faridpur on the 21st June 1915. The appellant before us is Mr. T.C. Tweedie, who was brought on the record as defendant No. 22 in his capacity of Receiver of an estate known as the Haturia Estate, in which capacity be represents in this suit the interests of a Mohammadan family, members of which were originally impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 to 19. The Haturia Estate is the collective name of a number of properties in the districts, of Faridpur and Backergunge inherited by this family from Golam Ali, a wealthy Zemindar (of Hataria in Faridpur) who died in the year 1295.2. The plaintiffs are members of a joint Hindu family owning land in Faridpur. The most influential of them is Babu Jogesh Chandra Roy Chowdhury or Jogesh Babu, plaintiff No. 1. The transactions to which the suit relates were carried out in the name of his cousin, Bhupesh...
Panchu Kapali and Rajaram Kapali, Minors, by their Grandmother Next Fr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal329,53Ind.Cas.959
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to 5 cottas of land and for possession thereof. Both Courts, after deciding in the plaintiffs' favour on the facts at issue, have held that the suit must be dismissed as being barred by limitation under Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The facts as found are as follows: The plaintiffs' father on the 7th Magh 1315 B. S. was granted a potta by (be defendants. At the time of granting this potta the defendants were in possession of 5 cottas of the land and obtained permission of the plaintiffs' father to remain in possession during three months to enable them to remove their huts on the land. But after this period had elapsed, the defendants did not remove their huts and remained in possession adversely to the plaintiffs' father and afterwards to the plaintiffs.3. It is first contended that the special limitation of the Limitation Act did cot apply, because there is no evidence on t...
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Monalar Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal524(1),53Ind.Cas.238
Chatterjea, J.1. These appeals arise out of proceedings under the Land Acqisition Act and the question involved in the appeals relates to the valuation of the land acquired.2. It has not been shown that the valuation arrived at by the learned Judge below upon the materials on the record in the present case is wrong. The valuation by the Judge, however, represents all the interest in the land, and not merely the landlord's interest. The landlord is, therefore, entitled only to his share of the excess amount as found by the Court below. The tenants accepted the award of the Collector and did not ask for any reference to the Judge nor take any exception to the award before the Judge. Under the circumstances, the tenants are not entitled to any share of the excess amount found by the Court below.3. The result is that the oases must go back to the lower Court in order that there might be apportionment between the interests of the landlord and the tenants. The Collector will have to deposit ...
Mamraj Agarwala and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representatives C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.932
Walmsley, J.1. Defendant obtained a decree against the plaintiff's father and in execution of that decree attached certain property. Plaintiff then objected that the property was his and not his father's and he filed a claim before the executing Court. That claim was dismissed. He thereupon brought the present suit for a declaration that the property attached of the decree-holder-defendant was his own property and not his father's. Defendant objected that the suit was undervalued as the property was worth not Rs. 300 but Rs. 3,000 and, therefore, the Munsif in whose Court it was instituted had no jurisdiction to. try it. He also contended that the document was not genuine but that it was executed for the purpose of defrauding or defeating the father's creditors.2. To take the second point first. The Munsif was of opinion that the document was intended to be a gift and that the consideration money set out in it was only nominal. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the cons...
J.H. Jones Vs. the Administrator-general of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal485
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Joseph Henry Jones and Ema Adelaide Jones, the executor and executrix of the late Thomas Gill Jones, claiming as the next of kin of Henry Willkin Jones, late of Calcutta, against the judgment of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Chaudhuri, delivered in 1918.2. The parties to the suit were as follows:--The Administrator-General of Bengal, and as such the Executor and Trustee of Henry Wilkin Jones, was the plaintiff. The first defendants were the Pastor and Deacons of the Circular Road Baptist Church, Calcutta, and they were sued as representing the Baptist Church. The next defendant was the Pastor of the Howrah Baptist Church, sued as representing that Church. The third defendant was the Pastor of the Lall Bazar Baptist Church, sued as representing that Church; and, the fourth defendant was Thomas Gill Jones, whose name I have already mentioned and whose representatives are the appellants in this appeal.3. Now, in the suit several matters were raised...
Monohar Mukherjee Vs. Kali Das Nandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.840
Walmsley, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff against his putnidars for a declaration that he was entitled to khas possession of some chakran lands which had been resumed or, in the alternative, for a declaration that the putnidars must pay him rent at the rate of Rs. 3 per bigha. Both the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiff's claim for khas possession, and with regard to his claim for rent, they limited him to the sum which the Zemindar bad to pay to the chowkidari fund and cesses. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal to this Court. So far as his original prayer for khas possession is concerned, the case of Ranjit Singh v. Kali Dasi Debi 40 Ind. Cas. 981 : 21 C.W.N. 609 : 25 C.L.J.499 : 32 M.L.J. 565 : 15 A.L.J. 390 : 19 Bom. L.R. 462 : 2 P.L.W. 1 : (1917) M.W.N. 459 : 6 L.W. 101 440. 841 : 22 M.L.T. 489 : 44 I.A. 117 (P.C) is conclusive against him. With regard to his other claim, the Courts below proceeded, first, on the wordings of the Patta...
Joseph Henry Jones and anr. Vs. the Administrator-general of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal809,47Ind.Cas.383
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Joseph Henry Jones and Emma Adelaide Jones, the Executor and Executrix of the late Thomas Gill Jones, claiming as the next-of kin of Henry Wilkin Jones, late of Calcutta, against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Chaudhuri delivered in 1918.2. The parties to the suit were as follows: The Administrator-General of Bengal, and as such the executor and trustee of Henry Wilkin Jones, was the plaintiff. The first defendants were the Pastor and Deacon of the Circular Road Baptist Church, Calcutta; and they were sued as representing the Baptist Church. The next defendant was the Pastor of the Howrah Baptist Church, sued as representing that Church. The third defendant was the Pastor of the Lall Bazar Baptist Church, sued as representing that Church: and, the 4th defendant was Thomas Gill Jones, whose name I have already mentioned and whose representatives are the appellants in this appeal.3. Now in the suit several matters were raise...
Annada Prasanna Lahiri Vs. Badulla Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal963,47Ind.Cas.985
Walmsley, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the plaintiff: he brought the suits from which they arise to eject the defendants from various parcels of land, which they hold under him. His case is that the defendants are under-raiyats, and that his own interest is that of a raiyat. The Courts below have found that the plaintiff served notices on the defendants, but they have upheld the defence plea that the plaintiff is a tenure-holder and that the defendants are raiyats, not under raiyats.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has compiled a very careful narrative of the transactions affecting the tenancy since 1888 when the Ghoses, who may be called the plaintiff's predecessors, executed a mortgage in favour of one Tarini Kanta, and it is unnecessary to reproduce the narrative in this judgment.3. Three points have been pressed on behalf of the plaintiff, namely, (1) that it was not open to the lower Courts to go into the conduct. of the parties for the purpose of determining the origin of ...
Felu Sarkar and ors. Vs. Rani Hemanta Kumari Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.365
1. These appeals are preferred by the principal (defendants, the tenants. The plaintiff brought the suit from which they arise to recover khas possession of her share, approximately four annas, in certain land, by ejecting the principal defendants, and she made the Midnapore Zemindary Company, owners of the remaining interest, pro forma defendants. Her case was that she granted an ijara of her share to Messrs. Watson & Co., predecessors of the Midnapore Zamindary Company, and that at the expiry of the tiara she brought a suit against them in 190S, and obtained a decree, and that the tenant defendants obtained settlement of the lands during the pendency of that suit. The suits were dismissed by the first Court, but they were decreed on appeal.2. The defence was that the defendants obtained settlement from Messrs. Watson & Co. in 1305 while the latter were in possession under their ijara lease.3. The contentions pressed by the appellants-defendants are based mainly on the assertion that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›