Kolkata Court January 1919 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.
Chandrodaya Bhattacharjee Vs. Srimati Chandrakala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1919
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.751
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against a decision of the learned Officiating Additional District Judge of Tipperah, dated the 4th April 1917, affirming a decision of the Second Munsif of Nabinagar. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain property consisting of a homestead and a certain grass land. The plaintiff has failed in the lower Appellate Court on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The facts found are that this property originally belonged to one Gour Chandra Shaha, that Gour Chandra sold the property to the plaintiff in the year 1308, but that possession was never made over by Gour Chandra to the plaintiff and that Gour Chandra died being in possession of the same. The defendants are not legally related to Gour Charan, The defendant No. 1 was the mistress of Gour Charan and according to the plaintiff's story she was living in the house owing to the position she occupied with reference to Gour Charan. In her written statement she seems to ...
Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. Nur Muhammad and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal171,50Ind.Cas.641
Beachcroft, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. Their case was that they had a Mourashi Mokarari Jama of Rs. 102-6-0 under Talukdars known as biswas. It appears that oat of this, one ligha and 19 cottas were let oat to the defendants at a rental of Rs. 10. The plaintiffs allege that the status of the defendants was that of under-Baiyats, that they gave notice under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and that as the defendants did not give up possession, they had to bring this suit for ejectment. The defence was that the defendants were either under tenure-holders or were at the least occupancy Baiyats, the plaintiffs being tenure holders and that, therefore, Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act had no application. The question, then, primarily is one of status, if the plaintiffs are Baiyats and the defendants are their under-Baiyats, the plaintiffs are entitled to eject them after notice under Section 49. On the other hand if the plaintiffs' status was higher than ...
Bal Mukund Ruia Vs. Gopiram Bhotica
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1919
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.195
Rankin, J.1. By a contract of 1st December 1917, made on the ordinary form of the Indian Jute Manufacturer's Association, the plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendant three lacs of yards of Hessian cloth. The only express terms which require notice are three:Delivery of the said goods to be given and taken as follows: December 1917.2. Each month's delivery to be treated as a distinct and separate contract.3. Any dispute whatsoever arising on or out of this contract shall be referred to arbitration under the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce applicable for (he time being for decision, and such decision shall be accepted as final and binding on both parties to this contrast. The award may, at the instance of either party, and without any notice to the other of them, be made a rule of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William.4. These three terms are all part of the printed form with the exception of the words 'December 1917' at the end of the first.5. The seller by his Counsel ...
Tarapada Majumdar Vs. Satish Chandra Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal228,(1919)ILR46Cal784
Chitty and panton, JJ.1. These appeals are preferred by the Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of Kushtia and arise out of two suits filed by the plaintiff. Satish Chandra Shaha, against the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and certain other officers of the Municipality claiming a declaration that certain taxes levied upon him were illegally levied, and demanding a refund thereof with damages for illegal distress. The Subordinate Judge has given the plaintiff a decree in each case for refund of the taxes and Rs. 100 as damages. The plaintiff has preferred cross-objections in each case claiming Rs. 1,900 and Rs. 600 respectively more as damages.2. The plaintiff and his brothers Suresh Chandra Shaha and Jogesh Chandra Shaha, pro forma defendants Nos. 6 and 7, are admittedly owners of the premises now in question which are situate in village Majampur in the district of Nadia. The property lay on the outskirts of the Kushtia Municipality. The land surrounding the plaintiff's house, which he a...
Sarat Chandra Das Vs. Mati Lal Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.237
1. The petitioner in this Rule held a permanent under-tenure in a taluk. It was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent under the provisions of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Tenancy Act and the petitioner applied under Order XXI, Rule 89, of the Civil Procedure Code to have the sale set aside on deposit of money under that section.2. The case comes from the District of Backergunge.3. Section 170 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Tenancy Act does not exclude the operation of Section 310A (corresponding to Order XXI, Rule 89, of the present Code of Civil Procedure) to a tenure or holding attached in execution of a rent decree, as is done by Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Order XXI, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code, therefore, applies to a sale held for arrears of rent in Eastern Bengal and Assam, and the question for consideration is whether an under-tenure comes within that rule. Order XXI, Rule 89, says: 'Where immoveable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any...
Shyam Lal Dey Vs. Manmatha Nath Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.324
Beachcroft, J.1. The litigation concerns a narrow strip of land about 3 inches wide, which runs between the backs of the houses of the plaintiff and defendant. There are windows of plaintiff's house overlooking this strip but it does not appear whether any door of his house, which has two road frontages besides, opens on to it.2. The facts either admitted or found are that up to the year 1909 this strip was a drain. In that year the connected latrine system was introduced by the Corporation and from that time the drain began to silt up. In 1913 the defendent paved the strip with bricks, Subsequently he closed it at both ends.3. The plaintiff brought this suit to have the obstruction removed alleging that the drain was a public drain, which had subsequently become a public passage, and asked for a declaration to that effect. In paragraph 7 of his plaint he set out the damage which he had suffered. He begins by asserting that he cannot enter on or pass over the land, and then sets out th...
ErfanuddIn Molla and anr. Vs. Badan Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.583
Beachcroft, J.1. The appellants are the second and third defendants. The suit has some remarkable features, which are evident on a perusal of the judgments of the lower Courts, but the feature which principally attracts attention, though perhaps it ought not to be styled remarkable in a country which is notorious for the protraction of litigation, is that the suit, which is virtually one for restitution of conjugal rights and, therefore, essentially one for speedy disposal, has lasted for 6 years, and the practical effect of this is that though the person principally interested, the alleged wife, was a mere child of 7 at its inception, she has now reached an age when she will be in a position, if indeed she has not already attained it, either at once or in the near future, to nullify, if she so chooses, any findings of the Courts as to the fact of her marriage and consequent directions based thereon by exercising her right of repudiation under the Muhammadan Law.2. The plaintiff is the...
Purna Chandra Ray Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Jogendra Nath Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.262
Greaves, J.1. The question arising on this second appeal, in which the plaintiff is the appellant, is whether the rejection of an application for the assessment of mesne profits debars a farther application for assessment being made. The District Judge of the 24-Pargannas, reversing the decision of the Munsif, had held that rejection of such an application debars any subsequent application as the rejection has the effect of dismissing the suit, and he relies for this upon the authority of Upendra Chandra Singh v. Sakhi Chand 15 Ind. Cas. 709 : 16 C.L.J. 3.2. The material facts are as follows: The suit was filed on the 1st February 1934 claiming possession of certain lands and Wasilat at the rate of Rs. 30 per annum or at such rate as the Court should direct. On the 23rd June 1904 the suit was decreed and it was directed that the amount of mesne profits should be ascertained in the execution department. The decree was affirmed on appeal on the 11th September 1905. On the 8th September 1...
Bhutnath Bose Vs. Kali Prasad Patra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal520,50Ind.Cas.71
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the Additional District Judge of the 24-Perganaa affirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff sued upon a mortgage dated the 14th Magh 1305.2. Three questions arise on the appeal, first, whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation, secondly, whether there was in fact consideration for the mortgage, and thirdly, a point which has not been dealt with by either of the lower Courts, whether the provision for interest at the rate of 75 per cent. contained in the mortgage-bond is an unconscionable bargain.3. With regard to the first point, both the lower Courts have held that upon the construction of the bond the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation. The bond provides for repayment of the principal and interest by the month of Chaitra 1305, but there is this additional provision, namely, that if the mortgagor fails to repay the amount upon this date he is to give to the mortgagee the produce of the mort...
Enday Ali Howladar and ors. Vs. Benodini Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.233
1. These Rules were granted in connection with an order of the Subordinate Judge of Barisal granting an application under Order XXII, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code.2. The petitioner brought certain rent suits and pending these rent suits, he executed a conveyance in favour of the opposite parties in respect of certain properties. The opposite parties applied for substitution of their names in the place of the petitioner in the rent suits, on the ground that the petitioner had sold his interest in the tenure which included the land in respect of which the rent suits were instituted, The application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the Kobala had been tampered with and that he had not sold the properties in suit to the opposite parties.3. The Court of first instance held that it could not rely on the Kobala as purporting to convey the interest of the petitioner in the suit to the opposite parties and accordingly dismissed the application for substitution on the 28th May 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »