Kolkata Court August 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.
Bibhuti Bhusan Chakravarty and ors. Vs. Umesh Chandra Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.614
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application made by the decree-holders who purchased certain property in execution, asking the Court to an order made by the District Judge affirming the decision of the Munsif. The District Judge has found that the applicants obtained by fraudulent Suppression of sale-notices a property of considerable value for an inadequate price of Rs. 49 only. The decree-holders, being aggrieved by the. judgment of the District Judge, have applied to this Court to have the order set aside. The first question that arises is this: Had the opposite party an interest entitling him to come to Court under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. The opposite party had a mortgage--a mortgage securing the payment of paddy--and apparently there were endorsements on the deed. The learned Judge held that the opposite party had an interest.' It is quite true that the learned Judge departed from the duties of a Judge when he stated that the mortgagors were morall...
Protap Chundra Dutt Vs. Abhimanini Surini and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.752
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree complained of should not be set aside. What happened was this: the plaintiff brought a suit against the defendants in the Small Cause Court for the price of paddy with interest, The learned Judge's judgment consists of the following:The joints for decision are:(1) Whether defendants borrowed the paddy in question?(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the interest claimed?2. The first point is found in the negative. So, the second point does not arise for determination. Dismissed with costs.' The plaintiff complained that he is entitled to a judgment setting forth the reasons which moved the learned Judge to come to the conclusion he arrived at. That turns purely on the construction of the Statute. Order XX, Rule 4, Sub-rule (1), says, ' judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon.' That there is a difference bet...
Jogendra Nath Mallik Vs. Shib Narayan Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.965
1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside and the petitioner permitted to pay the amount of the rent decree into Court. The petitioner alleged that he had purchased the holding at a sale in execution of a rent-decree. Subsequent to that, the landlord opposite party brought a suit for rent against the original tenants and obtained a decree. Thereupon, the petitioner applied to deposit the decretal amount into Court under the terms of Section 170 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court below has found that the' present applicant was not a party to the rent suit and that the rent-decree was not passed against him and has accordingly refused the petitioner's application. Of course, the petitioner does not come under the purview of Section 170 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. If his story is true that he has got an interest, it is not an interest voidable on the sale because the sale of the judgment-debtor's property wil...
Lal Mohan Saha Vs. Shaikh TazimaddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal217,49Ind.Cas.756
Fletcher, J.1. This Rule was issued on the application of the plaintiff calling upon the defendant-opposite parties to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Tipperah, dated the 25th January 1918, should not be set aside. The plaintiff sued to recover certain money on two bonds. He alleged that the bonds, though dated more than three years prior to the suit, were still alive and could be sued upon on the ground of certain part-payments which were endorsed and signed on the back of the bonds. The first defendant put in a written statement and joined issue. The second defendant did not contest the suit. As regards him, the suit was a non-contested one and, on the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment against him. The case came on before the learned Small Cause Court Judge, and apparently a week before the trial an application was made for the issue of fresh notices on some of the witnesses for the plaintiff. The learned Judg...
Sowrendra Mohan Sinha Vs. Soshi Bhusan Koer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.232
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution.2. The plaintiff belongs to the Zemindar family of Debipur in the District of Burdwan. He is the Darpatnidar (to the extent of 12 annas share) of Mouzah Beeruha, which is two miles distant from Debipur. The defendants are residents of Mouza Baeruha ; the defendant No. 1, Soshi Bhusan Koer, practises as a Pleader at Purnea, the defendant No, 2, Bama Charan Koer, is his brother and the defendant No. 3, Bhola Nath Mandal, is the brother-in-law of Bama Charan.3. A 12-annas share of the Patni interest of Mouza Beeruha belonged to the Mulliks of Chonpura and the remaining 4 annas to Bhola Nath, the defendant No. 3. The plaintiff is the Dar patnidar of the 12 annas share under the Mulliks from the time of his ancestors. The 4-annas share of the Patni of the defendant No. 3 was held by him in khas. In August 1909 the Mulliks sold their 12 annas Patni interest to the defendant No. 1, Soshi Bhusan.4. The plaintiff's case i...
Dinanath Chanda, and on His, Death His Heirs and Legal Representatives ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.984
1. These five appeals arise out of as many suits for recovery of possession of certain plots of land on establishment of title.2. The lands are situated in Mouzah Fazilabari, which originally appertained in equal shares to two revenue paying Estates Nos. 4357 and 265 on the revenue roll of the Dacca Collectorate. In the year 1888 as the result of a partition effected under the Estates Partition Act, 1876, the lands in question fell to Estate No. 265.3. The general case for the plaintiffs was that they had obtained settlement from the landlords in 1292, i.e., 3 years before the partition, that the lands diluviated in 1293, and re-appeared in 1316, Thereafter, it is said, the plaintiffs were dispossessed by the principal defendants acting on the strength of settlements taken from some of the co-sharer landlords.4. In Suit No. 2355 out of which Appeal No. 2903 arises, the special case of the plaintiff was that he and his co-sharers, the sons of one Lal Behari, held 4 annas under a Miras l...
Harimohon Roy Vs. Khalil Bepary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.433
1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree complained of should not be set aside No one shows cause at the hearing before us. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court below found that the plaintiff was in possession of the land. Therefore, under the terms of the Act, he was entitled to be restored to possession. But the. Munsif, finding the plaintiff to be in possession without any title, dismissed the suit. The suit being one under the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff, on proving his possession and dispossession as mentioned in the section was entitled to be restored to possession The judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif must be set aside and in lieu thereof a decree must be passed directing the plaintiff to be restored to possession of the suit land. The petitioner is entitled to his costs in this Rule...
Narendra Nath Sannyal and ors. Vs. Uma Charan Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal111,49Ind.Cas.272
1. This is a Rule obtained by the defendants calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated the 6th December 1917, should not be set aside; What happened was this. The defendants were the appellants 'in a case before the learned Additional District Judge, The appeal was called on for hearing on the 19th November 1917. The appellants' Pleader was not in Court that day and be had with him all the papers. So, the defendants-appellants), who were obviously in imminent risk of shipwreck, approached the learned District Judge and persuaded him to give them an adjournment subject to a particular condition which they undertook to perform. The learned Judge granted them an adjournment till the 6th December 1917 on condition that the appellants would give Rs. 40 as adjournment costs to the respondents. It is quite obvious what the learned Judge meant, namely, that, unless that condition was complied with, the adjournment would be refus...
Sarat Chandra Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.600
Walmsley, J.1. The circumstances of this case are as follows : The petitioner, Sirat Chandra Sen, is a Naib of the Bijui Raj.2. The Raj brought a rent suit against one Ramnath Sonar and on June 2nd, 1914, obtained a decree for costs amounting to Rs. 6-2-9, with an order that if the turn were not paid within one month he should be ejected from his holding. On December 23rd, 1915, the Raj filed an application for execution of the decree, and this application was verified by the petitioner. There were several inaccuracies in the petition but it is not necessary to deal with them, for the substantial point is the allegation that the sum had been paid within one month from the decree. The result of the execution proceedings was that Ram Nath was ejected from the holding on May 19th, 1916. Then a fresh tenant was inducted on the land, and there followed a struggle between him and Ram Nath, which caused the local Magistrate to institute proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. ...
Upendra Chandra Bhadra Vs. Hukum Chand De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal522
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Comilla, dated the 23rd August 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Brahmanberia. The plaintiff brought the suit to enforce a simple mortgage. The plaintiff is the heir of the original mortgagee, and the defendant is the heir of the original mortgagor. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit for the reason, amongst others, that it has not been proved that the document sued upon was executed in the manner required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. The facts found are these: The original mortgagor was an illiterate man and the document was drawn up by the scribe, one Uma Nath Dutt. The mortgagor not being able to sign his name, the document was executed on his behalf by Uma Nath, and it is found and is supported by an inspection of the mortgage deed that no mark or seal or thumb impression of the mortgagor appears on the mortgage d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »