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.
Chogmal Seraogi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.981
1. This Rule relates to an order made by the Munsif of Jangipur sitting as a Judge of the Small Cause Court by which he sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 50 for the contempt of Court. The contempt charged consists in this, that the petitioner had disobeyed an order of the Court.2. It appears that the petitioner and another person had instituted a suit against two defendants in the Court of Small Causes for the recovery of money due on a hand-note. The suit was decreed with costs on the 12th July 1918. On the following day the defendants applied for a revival or re-trial of the suit. The application, which was in the nature of an application for. review of judgment, was put on the ground that the suit was a fraudulent suit and that the defendants had come to know of certain account-books belonging to the petitioner which contained entries showing that the claim was unfounded. Upon that the Munsif issued a notice upon the petitioner in the following terms: 'You are hereby inf...
Haran Chandra Chatterjee Vs. the Corporation of the Royal Exchange Ass ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal266,52Ind.Cas.767
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Greaves. J., whereby he set aside a decree made in the suit in favour of the plaintiff by the Calcutta Court of Small Causes and directed a retrial.2. The order was made in pursuance of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and on appeal it was argued that the Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction to try the case, that it did exercise such jurisdiction and that it had not acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The suit was upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendants in favour Messrs. Gangjee Nangsee & Co., Rangoon in respect of rice consigned by them to the plaintiff and shipped upon the SS respect of 483 bags of rice alleged to have been damaged by water.3. The defendant Corporation admitted that 483 bags were damaged, but denied that the damage was caused by any of the adventures or perils insured against under the said policy.4. The judgment of the Small Cause Cou...
Gurudas Kundu Choudhury and ors. Vs. Kamal Kumar Dut
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal831,70Ind.Cas.886
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Howrah, dated the 17th February 1917, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' suit was to recover possession of an 8-annas share of certain properties four in number scheduled to the plaint and his claim was resisted on the ground that these properties were included with other properties in a mortgage executed on the 3rd May 1889 by one Nagendra Nath Mullick in favour of one Kedar-Nath Kundu Choudhury in respect of which Kedar-Nath obtained a decree on the 19th September 1892 under which he brought the mortgaged properties to sale on the 28th April 1895 two of the properties in suit being purchased at the sale by defendants Nos. 1 to 7 and two by one. Mohini Nath Mittra who subsequently conveyed these to the defendants.2. The properties in suit properly belonged to one Shama Sundari Dassi as her yautuk stridhan. She died on the 23rd March 1872 leaving her surviving two sons, ...
Lagandeo Prosad Singh Vs. D.G. Reid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal118,50Ind.Cas.760
1. In this case Mr. Ghoae's clients, the Zemindars of Bewasi, are asking for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against three decrees which were made by the High Court, one made in suit No. 114 in which the Rewasi Zemindars were the plaintiffs and the other two were made in suit No. 141 in which the defendants in suit No. 114 were the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in No. 114 were the defendants.2. In suit No. 114 the plaintiffs asked for a declaration of their rights to put a dam across a certain river and for damages against the defendants for interfering with the dam. That suit was dismissed in the Court of first instance. There was an appeal to the High Court against the decree of the Court of first instance and that appeal was dismissed in toto.3. In suit No. 141 the plaintiffs were asking for a declaration that the plaintiffs as riparian owners were entitled to have the use of the water of the river unimpeded by the erection of the dam, and further asked for damages alleged...
Bijoya Kanta Lahiri Chowdhury Vs. Kailash Chandra Bhoumik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal771
Richardson, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the grant of a lease. The suit has had a long history. Specific performance was granted by the decree of the trial Court, dated 26th April 1911. On first appeal that decree was reversed by a decree, dated 5th March 1912, the Court holding that the agreement was incomplete, inasmuch as it did not fix the date from which the lease should commence, and further holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had tendered the balance of the premium within the period stipulated. The plaintiffs preferred a second appeal to the High Court (No. 1183 of 1912) which came before Mookerjee and Roe JJ. By a judgment, dated 13th May 1915, those learned Judges held that it was plain, in view of the provisions of Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act. that the intention of the parties must have been, in the absence of indication to the contrary, that the lease should take effect f...
Bijoya Kanta Lahiry Chowdhury Vs. Kailash Chandra Bhowmik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.575
Richardson, J.1. This is a second appear arising out of a suit for specifies performance of an agreement for the grant of a lease. The suit has had a long history, Specific performance was granted by the decree of the trial Court dated 26th April 1911. On first appeal that decree was reversed by a decree dated 5th March 1912, the Court holding that the agreement was incomplete inasmuch as it did not fix the date from which the lease should commence and farther holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had tendered the balance of the premium within the period stipulated. The plaintiffs preferred a second appeal to the High Court (No. 1183 of 1912 (See Kailas Candra Bhaumick v. Bijoy Kanta Lahiri 50 Ind. Cas. 177-Ed.)), which came before Mookerjee and Roe, JJ. By a judgment dated 13th May 1915 those learned Judges held that it was plain, in view of the provisions of Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the intention of the parties must have been, in the absen...
Ram Sundar Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.991
1. The case of the accused Ram Sundar Das has been referred to us by the Additional Sessions Judge of Mymen singh under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge and a Jury on a charge of murdering his wife Lalita and his infant daughter Niroda by striking them with a dao. When the learned Judge had finished his charge to the Jury, they retired to consider their verdict. After an interval they informed the Judge through the mouth of their foreman that they were divided in the proportion of 3 to 2, and there was no chance of their being unanimous. At the instance of the Judge they again retired for further consideration. They returned after an absence of one hour and the foreman said 'we are all of one mind in finding that the accused killed his wife and child. Three of us find the accused guilty of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and two of us find him not guilty on the ground of temporary insanity.' The Additional S...
Bashiram Nath Vs. Dina Nath Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal796,51Ind.Cas.397
1. This is an appeal in a suit for rent and the only question involved is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the whole of the rent for the holding or only the half of the rent.2. The plaintiff is the heir of one Gopi, who shared with his two brothers, Ramjoy and Baidya, the original landlords' interest. Ramjoy and Baidya both died before Gopi and as neither of them left any children and the widows of both died before Gopi, Gopi would, in the ordinary course, be the heir of both. But the defence was that one Dina Nath was a foster son of Ramjoy and as such entitled to a half share of the property. The learned Subordinate Judge gave effect to this contention and, therefore, decreed the suit for rent of only half the holding.3. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the amount of rent involved being less than Rs. 100.4. The appellant supports his light of appeal by referring to the case of Srimutty Poresh Moni ...
Mohendra Chandra Ghosal Vs. Ram Ratan Tewari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.442
1. This is an appeal against a decision of the learned District Judge of Chittagong confirming a decision of the Munsif of the same place. The judgment appealed against is not really one which the learned District Judge adjudicated on the merits, because the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the appeal ought to have been disposed of on the preliminary point. The point which commended itself to the learned Judge is this. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for specific performance of a contract and the decree was drawn up in a conditional form. However, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the decree against which the appeal had been preferred was a preliminary decree and that the final decree having been passed no appeal lay to his Court. It is quite obvious that the learned Judge is wrong and it has not been suggested that he is right. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code about preliminary and final decrees apply to decrees that are authorized to be...
Bhuban Mohan Guha Vs. Sheikh Badan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal263,(1919)ILR46Cal766
Chatterjea and Newbould JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of the lands in, dispute brought by the plaintiff who purchased the lands at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent.2. There was a dispute as to the nature of the interest purchased by the plaintiff. but it is found by the lower Appellate Court that the interest of the tenant which was purchased by ''the plaintiff was an occupancy holding and that the defendant No. 1 was an under-raiyat under that tenant. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff was bound to annul the in cumbrance of the defendant under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and also to serve a notice to quit under Section 49 of that Act.3. We are of opinion that the learned District Judge was wrong in the view he has taken in the case. Section 85, Clause (1), provides that if a raiyat sublets otherwise than by a registered instrument, the, sublease shall ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »