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.
Rajani Kanta Bhadra Vs. Panchananda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal550,48Ind.Cas.720
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Commilla, dated the 23rd August 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Brahmanbaria. 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.2. 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 mortga...
Subal Chandra Chowdhury, Manager to the Estate of Late Gopinath Saudag ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.437
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the) learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 4th September 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif at North Ranjan. The plaintiff sued in ejectment. The original plaintiff claimed as the purchaser of an estate at a revenue sale, the present plaintiff being the executor of his Will. The question is, whether the defendants have got an interest that protects them from ejectment. What is found is this. The present defendants more than twelve years prior to the institution of the suit obtained the property by a deed of gift from a lady named Kompani. Kompani apparently is found to have had the right of an occupancy raiyat. That is clearly a protected interest. The present defendants have been in possession for more than twelve years. The right of the landlord to maintain a suit for ejectment on the ground that the tenancy has been transferred without his, consent, if there is no custom of trans...
Alek Maimed Bepari and ors. Vs. Bachhani Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.477
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rungpur, dated the 8th November 1916 affirming the decision of the Munsif at Gaibandha. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of a six-annas share of a holding on declaration of his title by purchase. The suit was dismissed in the lower Courts. The learned District Judge in the Court of Appeal below held that the plaintiff's case was barred by res judicata. - That is the only point raised in this appeal. The case is put in this way: The ancestor of the present plaintiff sued the present defendants to recover rent, The -present defendants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. 'The case went to trial and an issue was settled on the point. The plaintiff's ancestor attempted to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant in two ways. First of all by admission of his title by the present defendants. That admission was stated to have been contained in certain Kabuliya...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal167(1),48Ind.Cas.702
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 19th June 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Fatikcheri. The facts are these: In the year 1908, the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam made a declaration under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act with reference to the compulsory acquisition of a particular piece of land and the structures standing' thereon and the trees growing upon the same for the purpose of providing the site for the residence of a judicial officer. The ordinary notice was issued calling upon the parties claiming interest to come in before the Collector and prefer their claim. That notice was served upon the present plaintiff. He came in and appeared before the Collector. The Collector adjudicated on his claim and found that the only right that the present plaintiff had was a right to the structure on the land and the tree or trees growing' thereon: and for tho...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Chaturbhuj Nanda and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1019,48Ind.Cas.963
1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, against the decision of the learned District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 23rd May 1916. In form, the decision of the learned District Judge affirms the decision of the Subordinate Judge; but, in substance, it does not. The suit was brought by the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The first defendant was the Secretary of State for India in Council. Before the Subordinate Judge, 'the plaintiff was successful and, in that Court, the learned Judge directed the Secretary of State to pay the costs of the plaintiff. The Secretary of State then preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge and the learned District Judge, having properly directed himself to the law, as is admitted on both sides, held that the Secretary of State for India in Council was not a necessary party to the suit and ought not to have been joined as a defendant. Thereupon, the lea...
Raj Chandra Deb Vs. Gour Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal157,49Ind.Cas.475
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 26th January 1917, affirming the decision of the Officiating Additional Mansif of Patiya. The plaintiffs sued in ejectment to recover possession of the bank of a tank. The case of the plaintiffs was that the bank appertained to a taluq called Sachiram included in the Cadastral Survey Dag No. 6049 and that they had been dispossessed by the defendant in the year 1912. Apparently, so far as we can see from the judgments of the Courts below, the plaintiffs also alleged that they had got a title by adverse possession. The defendant's case was that the land belonged to another taluq which came under certain Dags in the Maghi Survey. The first Court having appointed a Pleader Commissioner declined to act upon the report of the Commissioner and found in favour of the plaintiffs' title. That Court also found that the plaintiffs' suit was riot barred by limitation. On ...
Srimati Kausalya Sundari Vs. NabIn Chandra Kar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal55(1)
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 18th January 1917, affirming the decision of the Officiating Additional Munsif of Patiya. The plaintiff sued in ejectment. She claimed as the purchaser in execution of a money-decree and the interest she alleged she bought was the interest of the heirs of one Jonab Ali. Therefore, the plaintiff got by her purchase in execution only such right, title and interest as Jonab Ali or his heirs had in the property. It is found, and that finding is binding on us, that Jonab Ali was not in fact the owner of the land and that the document under which it is said that he took an interest was in fact a benami document. Therefore the plaintiff, if the facts are not open to the defendants in this case, has clearly got no title. It is said, however, that this matter was litigated before between the present defendants and the heirs of Jonab Ali and that, therefore, a case of res j...
Upendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. Prasanna Kumar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal884,48Ind.Cas.497
1. This Rule arises out of proceedings taken under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the order initiating the proceeding the subject-matter of the dispute is described as a fishery in the river Amra extending from a point named Bura Peer Dara on the north and a village Anantapur on the south. After a hearing extending over some 14 days ' the conclusion arrived at by the Magistrate is expressed in these terms: ' It is very difficult to come to a decision about the possession of the whole jalkar in dispute from the evidence adduced.' This finding is attacked in the first place on the ground that 'difficult' is not synonymous with ' impossibility ' and that the finding therefore does not satisfy the provisions of the second branch of Section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code. No doubt it is the case that difficulty is not necessarily synonymous with impossibility, but we think that in the present case we may read the Magistrate's judgment as meaning that on the evidence addu...
Annada Kumar Roy Vs. Sreemutty Hara Durga Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal168(1),49Ind.Cas.731
1. We think that the parties may have intended that the document which has been placed before us should not be taken to be a lease; but the question will still remain what is the legal effect of the document having regard to the actual words used. Notwithstanding that the document is described as a deed of contract or cheaklipatra, and the fact that there are some provisions in it which are consistent both with, the applicant being and not being a tenant, I think that there are provisions which can only be explained on the assumption that be was a tenant, and those are the provisions that he is to be put into possession for a specific term of years, namely, four years, and that he is to pay a specified amount of paddy, whatever might be the quantity actually grown, and further the price of paddy was fixed.2. Under these circumstances, I hold that this was a suit for rent for agricultural land and, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. The Rule is made absolut...
Sheikh Abdul Aziz Vs. Habid Mistri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.229
1. This appeal must be decreed. It has been held by the learned Judge upon a reading of Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, made applicable to insolvency proceedings, that if an applicant avails himself, of the second alternative mentioned in that rule, he is precluded from instituting a fresh application. The rule, however, does not say so, and if that were the intention, we might have found in it a provision similar to that in Order IX, Rule 9, which states that where a suit is dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. No other legal ground has been shown to us which existed in bad of the plaintiff's application for insolvency; and it is to be noted that the dismissal of the application on the 2nd November 1914 was on a ground which did not affect the merits. The application has never been determined upon the merits, and unless there is some specific provision prohibiting the present applic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »