Kolkata Court December 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.
Moni Mohan Banerjee and anr. Vs. Anoraddi Chowkidar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.212
Walmsley, J.1. I think this Rule must be made absolute. The learned Munsif finds not merely that the relationship of landlord and tenants does not exist between the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, bat he finds farther that the document upon which the plaintiff relies is a collusive document and that defendant No. 6 is one of the landlords of the tenant defendants. Those findings make the case very similar to that of Sita Nath Pal v. Kartick Gharmi 8 C.W.N. 434. I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Judge rejecting the appeal as incompetent and direct the appeal to be restored to its place on the register and disposed of in accordance with law. I make no order as to costs in this Court....
Sreemanto Bharasa and ors. Vs. the Port Canning and Land Improvement C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.330
1. The only question raised in this case is whether the defendants are settled raiyat within the meaning of Section 20 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. It is found that the defendants have held the land continuously for a period of 12 years and as raiyats, but that the area within which the land is situate (in the Sunderbans) did not constitute a 'village' until it was declared as a 'village' on the 28th February 1912, only a few months before the suit was instituted.3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that although that is so, the question whether a person has held lands situated in a village for a period of 12 years, is to be determined with reference to the state of things at the date of the suit and not during the period of 12 years, and it would be sufficient if the land which has been held by a raiyat is in a 'village' just before the suit and need not be in a 'village' for the period of 12 years, during which he held the land as a raiyat. But the section lays down that in ...
Nanda Lal Bose Vs. Ashutosh Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.515
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule was heard ex parte by Mr. Justice Chatterjea and Mr. Justice Panton some months ago, but later at the instance of the opposite party an order was passed that the Rule should be heard again. I have now heard the learned Pleaders on both sides. The facts are stated in the judgment delivered on the 24th of March last. There are now four points to be considered. The first one is that the lower Court ought to have set aside its order when the defendant made his application for review of judgment. I have read the learned Judge's judgment in regard to this application and I think that he was correct and that there is no ground for interference on that score.2. The second point urged is that the suit is barred by limitation. The point taken by the lower Court was that the suit was saved by the operation of Section 10 of the the Limitation Act. When the case was heard by this Court, the learned Judges took a different view and held that the suit was subject to the Rule ...
Bhupati Charan Nandi Vs. Golam Ehihar Choudhury of Salka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.539
Walmsley, J.1. This Rule must be made absolute on the authority of the case of Prosonno Kumar Chakravarti v. Prokash Chandra Dutta 28 Ind. Cas. 560 : 19 C.W.N. 329. That case followed the decision of Mr. Justiee North in the case of Consolidated Exploration and Finana Co. v. Musgrave (1900) 1 Ch. 37 : 81 L.T. 747 : 48 W.R. 298 : 69 L.T.Ch. 11 : 16 T.L.R. 13. The judgment and decree of the Judge of the Small Cause Court are set aside. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. If the defendant has deposited the decretal amount or any portion of it, he will be entitled to ask for a refund....
Mohan Lal Shah and anr. Vs. Jahury Lal Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.767
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves. The suit was by the plaintiffs claiming, as heirs of their deceased father, certain properties which were mentioned in the plaint.2. The learned Judge has disposed of the case upon a preliminary point, namely, that the suit would not lie by reason of the provisions of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and by reason of a previous suit which was instituted in 1912. It appears that when the suit of 1912 was instituted, the father of the plaintiffs was still alive. It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit was instituted, the plaintiffs could not claim as his heirs. But the father, who was one of the defendants, died shortly after the suit was instituted, and an amendment was made recording the death of the father (Dilchand) and a new summons was issued to the remaining sole defendant. Then all matters in dispute in that suit were referred to arbitration: and, after the reference the pl...
Ram Chundbr Gouri Shanker Vs. Ganputram-biswanath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.539
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Walmsley, whereby he gave judgment for the plaintiff.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised a paint going to the jurisdiction of the learned Judge, and he, first of all, drew oar attention to the fast that, although this plaint had been treated in the first instance as being a plaint under Order XXXVII, of the Civil Procedure Coda the learned Judge had not so treated it but had held that there was a clear cause of action disclosed in the plaint by reason of paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7. The learned Counsel then proceeded to argue that, that being so the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case because neither the whole of the cause of action nor any part of it arose within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court. I think that the learned Counsel's argument cannot be supported, because, in my judgment, a part of the cause of action did arise wit...
Annada Mohan Roy Vs. Atul Chandra Chakarbarti Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.753
1. The appellant in this case obtained a decree for rent for Re. 5,292 annas 10, 5 gandas together with Rs. 551 annas 13 as costs. Under the same decree the defendant also was to get from the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 345, 1 anna on account of costs. There was an appeal against that decree by the plaintiff on the question whether the lower Court was right in holding that the plaintiff must proceed against certain property in execution of the rent decree and his appeal succeeded.2. In the decree of this Court it was stated that 'the decree of the lower Court be varied in the manner following, namely, that the decree, in so far as it directs that the plaintiff shall recover the decretal amount with costs and interest by auction sale either of miras ijara or the property given in security, be and the fame is hereby set aside and in lieu thereof it is ordered and decreed that the execution of the decree for the realisation of the decretal amount do proceed against the properties in Schedule...
Gopal Pramanik Kapali, and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.85
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred: by the defendants against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated, the 27th January 1917, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Narail. The suit was brought under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act for enhancement of the rent payable by the defendants. The land which, it is common ground, is held by the defendants as tenants of the plaintiff measures about 148 bighas and the rent formerly paid was a sum of Rs. 48-12-0 per annum. Both the lower Courts in agreement have enhanced the rent to a sum of Rs. 126 odd a year and the defendants have appealed against that decision to this Court. The first point for the decision of the case is, 'what is the status of the defendants?' In the lower Courts, the case of the defendants' was that they were tenure-holders and not raiyats. The kabuliyat in the present case shows that it was granted for the purpose of cultivation to a lessee who had the occupation of an agri...
Mohendra Lal Biswas and ors. Vs. Jagat Chandra Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.63
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 6th March 1918, modifying the decision of the Munsif of Patiya. The plaintiffs brought the suit out of which the present appeal arises to recover possession of certain plots of land and the allegations made in the plaint are these: One Ram Gopal was formerly entitled to the lands in suit. He mortgaged them in 1895 to one Ramgati. Ramgati subsequently transferred his mortgage to the plaintiffs' father. The plaintiffs' father then instituted a suit on his mortgage, obtained a decree and had the property brought to sale in execution thereof, and himself became the purchaser at the auction sale held, on the 7th January 1913. The present suit was contested by the defendants Nos. 6 and 15. The defendant No. 6 alleged that Ramgopal had no title to the land in Schedule 3 of the plaint in the present suit and that the defendants Nos. 6 to 13 were in ...
Chandmull Goneshmull Vs. Dhanraj Ganpatroy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.457
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by the defendant for an order that the plaintiff firm do give inspection of the documents mentioned in the list annexed to the plaint of documents relied on in the plaint. The plaintiff firm offered inspection of the sowdah which is the only document actually referred to in the plaint, but denied the right of the defendant to inspect the documents in the list attached to the plaint of documents relied on by them until the defendant had filed his written statement.2. The application for inspection was made in reliance on Order XI, rule 15, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that every party to a suit shall be entitled at any time to give notice to any other party in whose pleadings or affidavits reference is made to any document to produce such document for the inspection of the party giving such notice or of his Pleader and to permit him or them to take copies thereof.3. Order VII, rule 9, provides that the plaintiff shall endorse on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »