Kolkata Court January 1919 Judgments
Lall Meah Vs. Rajani Kanta Chatterji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal64,50Ind.Cas.311
Beachcroft, J.1. This appeal is by the first defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of a Jalkar Mehal, that a certain spot in a river known as the Dhonogoda river was included in that Jalkar and that the defendants caught fish there and dispossessed them thereby. They, therefore, asked for a declaration that this portion of the river was included in that Jalkar, for possession and also for damages for the fish taken. The Munsif found against the plaintiffs. The learned Judge found in their favour. He found that the spot which was the subject-matter of the dispute was included within the plaintiffs' Jalkar. Consequently, he gave them a declaratory decree. He thought, however, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages on account of the fish taken because he was not prepared to accept the evidence as regards this incident. In this appeal, two points have been urged on behalf of the appellant. First, that the learned Judge was wrong in using a map which had been...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Nath Shah Bonik Vs. Radha Raman Shah Bonikya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.676
1. This Rule was granted in connection with an order made by the Court below allowing an application for leave to sue as a pauper. Since the Rule was granted we have considered the authorities bearing on the scope of an inquiry under Order XXXIII, Rules 4 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and have held that the Court cannot take evidence except the evidence of the applicant himself on the merits of the claim in such an inquiry, but that the Court has to determine whether the allegations in the petition and the examination of the petitioner himself disclose a cause of action. (See Civil Rule No. 384 of 1918 decided on the 25th November 1918.) The applicant, no doubt, can be examined on the merits of the cause as Rule 4 itself dearly lays down, In the present case the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the examination of the petitioner as well as the allegations in the petition show that there was a Cause of action. It is contended before us that the learned Subordinate Judge d...
Tag this Judgment!Nando Lal Roy and ors. Vs. Baserali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.806
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Backergunj imposing a fine upon the appellants under Order XVI, Rule 12, under the following circumstances.2. A proceeding was held against a Pleader Mokund Lal Dey who was alleged to have acted as manager of the appellants and their co-sharer, one Tarit Bhusan Roy. In the course of the proceedings, the appellants were summoned to produce certain documents. On the 20th June 1917 the appellants put in a petition stating that the documents were not with them but were with their co-sharer, Tarit Bhusan, and that consequently they were unable to produce them. It appears that the Ijmali officers of the appellants and Tarit Bhusan, viz., Srinath Roy Chowdhuri and Hira Lal Ganguli, were also cited as witnesses, but they did not appear. Proclamations were issued (so far as the appellants are concerned) under Order. XVI, Rule 10. The appellants thereupon filed another petition on the 22nd January 1918, in which they repeated that th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnadhan Banerji Vs. Sanyasi Charan Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.597
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits to recover money, one on a hand-note and the other on a hath chitta. In the lower Court four suits were tried together. Appeals have been preferred against the decrees in two only, Suit No. 53 of 1914 corresponding to Appeal No. 138 of 1916 and Suit No. 243 of 1914 corresponding to Appeal No. 140 of 1916.2. It appears that one Bhuban Mohan had two Karbars, one for fuel wood at Munshigunge, and another for rice and other articles at Kalibazar. He died in Kartick 1306 (November 1899) leaving five sons, viz., Nilratan, Amullya, Sattya Charan, Fatik arid Sanyasi Charan. The last two were minors, and Nilratan, the eldest brother, was appointed 1890. The ancestral Karbars, viz' the Munshigunge and the Kalibazar business were carried on, on behalf of the joint family, by Nilratan as Karta, assisted by the other two adult brothers. A new Karbar in rice at Orphangunge was started after the death of Bhuban Mohan and carried on on behalf of the joint fa...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Nath Sinha Roy and anr. Vs. Binode Behari Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.289
Beachcroft, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge has returned the finding after remand that the transferee has acquired the title of a tenant against the landlord by adverse possession of the limited interest. That con-oludes the case. But the learned Pleader for the appellant argues that in spile of the possession of the transferee the defendant is also liable for the rent. That appears to me to be an impossible proposition. The transferee having acquired his title against the landlord, I cannot fee how the transferee and the transferor should be jointly liable for the rent, nor do I see, considering how the transferee has acquired his interest against the landlord, how there can be a several liability. The learned Pleader for the appellant refers to Section 73 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That obviously has no application, because it refers to the case of a transferable occupancy holding whereas the holding in the present case is non transferable. Nor do I think that we can extend the pr...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Prosad Maity Vs. Rameswar Adya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.435
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. His case was that he carried on a partnership business with the two defendants and that in the course of that partnership business he advanced Rs. 40 for the purposes of the business. The business subsequently came to an end. When the plaintiff demanded his money from the defendants they refused to give it. Then a panchait was held, accounts were gone into, and the defendants admitted their liability, though the plaint does not state to what sum the liability was admitted. The plaint, however, stated that there must have been soma profits arising out of the dealing in the money put into the business but that the plaintiff did not know what profits exactly there were and that roughly speaking they would come to Rs. 9. The Munsif decreed the suit. When the matter went on appeal before the Subordinate Judge, the learned Judge held that the suit was not maintainable, referring to Section 265 of the Contract Act, and also on the ground that as there might...
Tag this Judgment!Sagore Mandal Vs. MofijuddIn Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.959
1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. The respondent before us as plaintiff claimed rent against the appellant at the rate of Rs. 125-4-0 a year. The appellant, who was the defendant in the rent suit, pleaded that the rent was Rs. 73 12 0 a year. The decree was passed according to the rate admitted by the defendant. On appeal the suit was decreed at the rate of Rs. 125-4-0 a year. The defendant preferred a second appeal to this Court. This Court set aside the decree of the Court below and remanded the appeal for a fresh hearing On rehearing the rent suit was decreed at the rate of Rs. 73-12-0 a year. Before this final decree was passed and after the Court below made a decree in the rent suit at the rate of Rs. 125-4 0, the respondent (the decree-holder) executed his decree, put up the holding in arrears to sale and himself purchased the same. The present application is for restitution of the property on the ground that the decree under whi...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman of the Howrah Municipality Vs. Barada Prasanna Pain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.731
Shamsul Huda, J.1. This is an application against an order of acquittal. As a rule this Court is reluctant to interfere in such cases. But as this is not a criminal case in the strict sense of the term, as it concerns the interests of a public body, and as it is, we understand, one of several cases of the same nature which are now pending in the Court below, we have thought it necessary to examine the case on its merits.2. The prosecution was against a Pleader of the Howrah Court, for practising as a Pleader without taking a license, under Section 578 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, which has been extended to the Howrah Municipality. The Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that under Section 631, Clause (1), of the Act which is also extended to Howrah, the complaint should have been made within three months of the date of the commission of the offence. The learned Magistrate says that the Pleader practically admitted that he had exercised his profession in 1917-18. If that be...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Garibullah and ors. Vs. Sheikh Modu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.301
Beachcroft, J.1. Some of the defendants are the appellants before me. The suit was one for recovery of possession. The plaintiffs claim to be under-raiyats under one Baikuntha Chakravarty who, they stated, was a raiyat of one Girija Kanta Lahiri of Kolipur, the land according to them being in village Baladashi. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 claim to be under-raiyats under defendants Nos. 7 to 15. They stated that the land was in village Rampasha of which the Zemindars are known as the Bhowanipore Zamindars. Thus it would seem that the simplest way to decide the question was to find out the situation of the land. That view recommended itself to the Subordinate Judge before whom the matter went on appeal from the Munsif, who decreed the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, after discussing the evidence, directed a remand and ordered a local investigation to be made with reference to the Thak map and after setting aside the judgment and decree of the Munsif be directed the Court to hold a fresh ...
Tag this Judgment!Pramatha Nath Roy Vs. W.A. Lee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal374,52Ind.Cas.582
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant P. N. Roy against an order made by Greaves, J., sitting on the Original Side of the Court, which was dated the 26th July 1918, whereby the learned Judge refused the application of the defendant.2. This application was for an order that the Registrar should be at liberty to receive from the defendant the sum of Rs. 27,000 as security furnished by the defendant, and that thereupon the ex parte decree (dated the 14th February 1918, which was conditionally set aside by an order dated the 23rd March 1918, might be set aside, and the defendant's defence restored in the suit.3. The main question arising in this appeal is whether the appeal is barred under Clause 151 of the First Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908.4. In order to make the point intelligible it is necessary to state certain material dates.5. On the 24th June 1916 the plaint in the suit was filed: the plaintiff claimed Rs. 27,443-2-0 in pursuance of an agree...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »