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.
Abdul Gani Vs. Radhika Mohon Dey Sarkar and Hari Mohan Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.249
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendant No. 1 against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tipperah, dated the 12th December 1918, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Commilla. The suit cut of which the present appeal arises was one brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain land, and the ground on which the plaintiff sought to recover possession was that he had the interest of a raiyat and that the defendant was an under-raiyat whose term had expired. The only question in the appeal is this: Has the plaintiff established that the defendant was an under-raiyat who held for a term of years and whose term has expired? It is a common fact between the parties that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff. The defendant set up the case that the plaintiff was a tenure-holder and that the defendant was a raiyat who had obtained a right of occupancy. Now in the present case, the holding held by the plaintiff exceeded an area of 100...
Sriram Chandra (Ram Chandra in Vakalutnamah) Sutradhar and anr. Vs. Dh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.463
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal brought by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bankura, dated the 6th January 1919, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought to recover possession of certain land within the limits of the town of Bankura. It appears from the facts found that one Dwarka Math Roy admittedly had a mokarari interest in the land in question. It was set up by the plaintiff and denied by the defendants that another interest bad bean created, namely, a dar mokarari interest in favour of one Hari Narain and Hari Narain's connection with the land was further evidenced, it was stated, by the fact that he kept a woman who lived on the land in dispute. However, the Court found that it was no satisfactory evidence, as to the creation of the dar mokarari interest in favour of Hari Narain. We have got to take that finding with the, other findings made in the judgment. I take it that what the le...
Anowor Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Azizor Rahaman Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.510
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. The defendants in this case appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong dated the 3rd February 1919, whereby the learned Judge affirmed the decision of the Munsif of Patiya, dated the 6th August 1917. The main point raised in the appeal can be stated in a few words. The plaintiff brought the suit for Khas possessions on the allegation that he purchased the property at an auction sale held under the provisions of Act XI of 1859, the property being sold for arrears of Government revenue. The present appellants were some of the co-sharer landlords of the property and it is not disputed that the landlord's interest passed to the auction-purchaser. But what has happened is this; Prior to the sale, that is, more than twelve years before the sale, one of the co-sharer landlords had purchased the occupancy right of a raiyat in the land sought to be recovered in the present suit. Now the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Mohan Pal v. ...
In Re: the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899;
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.439
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by Allibhoy Mahomed to set aside two awards of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, Nos. 663 and 664, both dated the 27th August 1919, in favour of Baijnath Kalooram and to restrain Baijnath from withdrawing a sum of Rs. 21,067.10-0 deposited by Allibhoy Mahomed with the Sheriff of Calcutta on the 4th September 1919 in respect of the execution of the awards.2. On the 24th June 1918 Baijnath applied for arbitration in respect of difference due to him from Allibhoy Mahomed on Advise Notes Nos. 23 and 31 and also in respect of Advice Note No. 34. On the 20th January 1919 Allibhoy Mahomed commenced against Baijnath Suit No. 223 of 1919 to stay the arbitration on the ground that there was an interpolation in Advise Note No. 31 stating that thereby Advise Note No. 28 was settled. Mr. Justice Chaudhuri refused an interlocutory application for stay and intimated, so I am told, that the question of interpolation was for the arbitrators to decide. Against Mr. Just...
MajaraddIn Kabiraj Vs. Majibar Rahaman Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.248a
1. It seems to us that the learned District Judge did not arrive at an independent finding of his own upon the evidence on the record, but proceeded upon a misapprehension that the Court of first instance had found that the price fetched at the sale was adequate, which was obviously due to a slip of the pan as a reading of the entire judgment will show. The learned Judge apparently did not consider that he was reversing the finding of the Munsif, as he merely says that he saw no reason not to accept the finding of the Munsif. We think that in these circumstances the Judge should come to an independent finding of his own upon the evidence on the record. The case is accordingly remanded to the lower Appellate Court for re hearing of the appeal. Costs, one gold mohur, to abide the result....
Kali Charan Saha Vs. Hari Mohan Basak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.531
1. These appeals arise out of proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act (III of 1907).2 The appellants before us applied to the Court below for adjudging seven persons, who were members of Hindu joint family, insolvents by one single petition. The learned District Judge on the 22ad August 1917 held that seven applications must be made as seven different persons were sought to be declared insolvents. In pursuance of that order, on the 8th September 1917, six more applications were made, each praying to have seven persons declared insolvent. The learned District Judge thereupon pointed out that this was bad and that there must be a separate petition regarding each person. On the 12th September 1917, six other petitions ware filed. ON the next day, 13th September, these six petitions and a petition for amendment of the original application were heard. The learned District Judge was of opinion that a declaration of insolvency could not be asked for in one petition for or against more...
Chiranjilal Ram Lal Vs. Tulsiram Jankidass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.734
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves and from an order made by him on the 7th day of July 1919.2. The application was made by the defendant firm asking that a decree which had been made by the learned Judge in the suit on the 4th of Jane 1919 should be reviewed. The application was based upon the following ground, that the evidence of one Baldeo Sahay which was very relevant and most material could not be produced by the defendant firm after the exercise of due diligence at the time when the decree was passed. It was alleged that the defendants believed that the evidence of Baldeo Sahay was of such a character that if it had been given at the said hearing it might possibly have altered the judgment. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that a certain contract was void, inoperative, unenforceable and of no effect, and that the defendants were not entitled to enforce the said contract or any rights the...
NabIn Chandra Shaha and ors. Vs. Sheikh Wajid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.598
1. The plaintiff and certain other persons were the heirs of one Rajabulla. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the co-sharer landlords of the jote which was held by Rajabulla. On the death of the latter, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 dispossessed the plaintiff from the land, they having secured a kobala of the entire land from defendant No. 8, one of the heirs of Rajabulla.2. The plaintiff brought a suit for joint possession in respect of his share of the land and the question raised in the case is whether the suit is governed by the provisions of Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. There is a divergence of judicial opinion with respect to the scope of Article 3, Schedule III, and in some cases it has been held that the article is inapplicable to a case where the dispossession is effected by the landlord not as landlord but an auction purchase r and under process of the Court. See Abhoy Churn Mookerjee v. Shaik Titu 2 C.W.N. 175; Brojo Kishore Mahapatra v. Saraswati Dassi ...
Laduram-nathmull Vs. Nandalal Karuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.747
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of my learned brother Mr. Justice Rankin, by which it was ordered that the award of the arbitrator appointed in the suit by reason of the order made in the suit and dated the 17th March 1919 be set aside and taken off the file. The learned Judge came to his conclusion on the ground that the condition of the jurisdiction which is given by Clause (1) of the 2nd Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code had not been complied with.2. The suit was brought by one Nandalal Karuri against the Official Assignee of Calcutta, Nilmoney Das who was then an insolvent, and a firm called Laduram-Nath-mull. It appears that Nandalal Karuri was a mortgagor, Nilmoney was the mortgagee and Laduram-Nathmull were submortgagees from Nilmoney.3. The prayers of the suit are set out at page 30 of the paper book in Appeal No. 66 of 1919 and were as follows: '(a) That the said premises Nos. 84.A, 84, 1A, 84 2A and 84.3A. Bowbazar Street, in the town of Calcutta be decla...
Probodh Chandra Bose Vs. Atul Chandra Ganguly and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.781
1. In the first case the petitioner, who is an actor, has been fined Rs. 10 for continuing a theatrical performance later than 1 a.m. on the 31st March last in breach of the Theatre Bye-laws, Rules 33 and 85 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. A Rule was issued by this Court. The grounds urged were (1915) 2 K.B. 49 : 84 L.J.K.B. 649 : 112 L.T. 519 : 79 J.P. 238 : 13 L.G.R. 541 : 31 T.L.R. 138 that bye-law 85 is ultra vires, (1911) K.B. 445 : 80 L.J.K.B. 141 : 103 L.T. 760 : 75 J.P. 53 : 9 L.G.R. 79 : 27 T.L.R. 141 that the abetment sections of the Penal Code do not apply to an offence treated by a bye-law framed under the Calcutta Municipal Act.2. In the second case both the petitioners are actors and have been fined Rs. 20 each for committing a similar breach of the same bye-laws, and a Rule was issued on the same grounds. Both the matters have been heard together.3. Under Section 559, Sub-Clause (52), of the Calcutta Municipal Act III of 1899, the General Committee of the Municipality is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »