Kolkata Court February 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.
Raj Mohon Dhupi and anr. Vs. Harendra Chandra Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.468
Greaves, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Faridpur, dated 31st January 1917, reversing a decision of the Officiating Munsif of Chikandi, dated 26th July 1915. The plaintiffs' suit was to eject the defendants from the holding in suit. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs had any title to the land in suit and alternatively contended that they were occupancy raiyats and were not liable to be ejected from the land. The Munsif upheld the defendants' contention, holding that the plaintiffs did not establish their title to the land in suit, and, secondly, he held that the defendants were occupancy raiyats and not liable to be ejected from the land. The Subordinate Judge has reversed the finding of the Munsif upon both the points. So far as the first point is concerned, it is urged before me on appeal that the Subordinate Judge relied upon two pieces of evidence which, strictly speaking, were not evidence, and that it has vitiated his de...
Binode Behari Pati Vs. Chaudhuri and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.453
1. This Rule is directed against an order by which the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan allowed the plaintiff, who was the appellant before him, to withdraw his appeal and also the original suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. In his order he has not stated what in his judgment were the sufficient grounds for permitting the plaintiff to take this course. But from the petition supported by affidavit before us and not controverted by the appellant, it appears that the plaintiff's reason for desiring to withdraw the appeal and suit was that he desired to adduce additional evidence. That is not a proper reason for permitting the plaintiff-appellant to withdraw his appeal and suit.2. We, therefore, set aside this order and direct that the appeal be re admitted and heard and determined on the merits.3. The plaintiff-appellant not appearing here we make no order as to costs in this Rule....
Radharaman Kundu Vs. Kamakshya Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal201(2),50Ind.Cas.993
1. It appears that one Kamakshya Nath Roy filed a petition of complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of *Nadia against one Swamp Chandra Das for having committed offences under sections 403 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued process against Swarup Chandra Das to answer to a charge under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code only.2. Swarup Chandra Das was said to be an agent of a lady of the name of Hari Dasi, sister-in-law of the complainant Kamakshya. The allegation was that Swarup Das got hold of a bond executed by one Lakhimoni in favour of Hari Dasi after the latter's death and had satisfaction entered on the back of the bond falsely. It was alleged that the endorsement on the back of the bond was made by the present petitioner; but no process was asked for against him as he offered to give evidence in support of the prosecution. He made a statement which was reduced into writing, in which he admitted having made the endorsement and signed...
Bejoy Ratna Roy and anr. Vs. Bhabani Sundari Dasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal678,51Ind.Cas.392
1. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Rakhal. She sued for declaration that the defendant No. 1, who is said to have been adopted by Nirmola (defendant No. 2), the widow of Bir Chandra, son of Rakhal who predeceased his father (Rakhal), had not been legally and validly adopted, and that the said defendant is not entitled to divest the plaintiff of her interest in the estate of her father, and for khas possession.2. The defendant No. 2 Nirmola is the mother and certificated guardian of the adopted son.3. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 2 for self and as guardian of her minor son, on the ground that the plaintiff was unchaste that permission was given to the defendant No. 2 by her husband Bir Chandra to adopt defendant No. 1 and that he had been accordingly adopted.4. Both the Courts below have concurred in finding that the plaintiff is not unchaste, that the estate left by her father had devolved upon her and that she could not be divested by the alleged adoption of defend...
Mohendra Nath Mozumdar Vs. Nagendra NaraIn Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.918
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is prefer-red by the defendant against the decision of the learned District Judge of Khulna, dated the 10th August 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Bagirhat. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of certain land which had been let out by a lease to the defendant. The first Court dismissed the suit altogether. The second Court, that is, the lower Appellate Court, held, first of all, that, as regards a particular matter on which it had been alleged that there had been a forfeiture of the tenancy, although there had been a forfeiture, there had been a waiver and, secondly, that the tenancy had been duly determined by a six months' notice. The only point raised in this appeal is whether lawfully this tenancy could be determined by a notice. The lease is in writing and, under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, subject to contract or custom, the lease would be one from month to month terminable on fifte...
Panchu Muchi Vs. Bhuto Muchi and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal126,50Ind.Cas.649
Greaves, J.1.This appeal is by defendant No. 2 against a decision of the Additional District Judge of 24,-Pargannas, dated the 9ch February 1917, affirming a decision of the Mansif. The plaintiffs suit was to establish his title to and to recover possession of 6 cottas of homestead land. The material facts are as follows. The land in suit originally belonged to four brothers, Ananda, Madhab, Rupchand and Gangadhar. In the year 1874i the four brothers executed a mortgage by way of conditional sale in favour of one Bhagirath, a Benamdar of the father of the present plaintiff. On the 2nd March 1888 the plaintiff father obtained a foreclosure decree and recovered possession. Thereupon he settled the land with Madhab and Gangadhar by a kabuliyat, dated 24th Baisak 1291. Then in default of payment of rent, on the 2nd March 1888 he obtained a rent decree against them. One of the tenants, Madhab, died and on the 23th May 1904 he obtained a rent decree against Gangadhar, who was Madhab's sole h...
Mani Lal Seal and ors. Vs. Bhola Nath Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal391(1),50Ind.Cas.975
Earnest Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Howrah, dated the 11th January 1917. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for their share of the rent for the years 1319 to 1322. The plaintiffs have an 8 annas 16-gandas share in the property and no question as to their having a separate collection arises. One point and only one point arises in this appeals and that is this: Are the plaintiffs entitled to appropriate the amount or part thereof that has been paid and received by them on account of rent against the interest becoming due on the rent? As regards the majority of cases there is no evidence at all that any direction was given by the tenant as to how the money should be appropriated. But in two cases, namely, as regards the payments that were made by letters Exhibits 5 (1) and D (1), there seems to have been an express direction given by the tenant that the payments were to be credited to the rents t...
Mritunjoy Gou and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.845
1. It appears that in connection with a civil suit pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Burdwan the plaintiff Srishtidar Mullick was appointed a Receiver. One of the properties in respect of which the Receiver was appointed was a ferry at Sutraghat. The Receiver met with opposition in getting possession and ultimately on the 11th November 1918, Mr. K.B. Mullick, Sub-Divisional Officer of Kalna, passed an order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing the petitioners 'to abstain from going either to ply any ferry boat or to erect any bund on the khari at or near Sutraghat and also from obstructing, Srishtidar to ply a ferry boat or to erect a bund over them.'2. This order seems to have been duly served on the petitioners, who were the second party in that proceeding. Subsequently there was a report by the Police that the petitioners had disobeyed the order under Section 144, and on receipt of this report the Magistrate on the 4th January 1919 directed the i...
Narendra Nath Sanyal and ors. Vs. Sheikh Emaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal187,51Ind.Cas.785
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover one plot of land on establishment of plaintiffs' title thereto and for a declaration that another plot is part of the plaintiffs' pathway used by them for the purpose of going to a tank.2. It appears that out of 3 1/2 bighas of land belonging to the plaintiffs, they let out one bigha more or less to defendant No. 2. The land thus let out to defendant No. 2 was again sublet by him to the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 1. The pathway in question lies immediately west of the land demised and two tanks, of which one belongs to the plaintiffs, lie to the south. The plaintiffs' case then was that the defendants had encroached upon their pathway and also upon their tank. The findings of the Subordinate Judge are that there has been no encroachment upon the pathway and that the extent of the encroachment upon the tank, if any, has not been established. In coming to these findings the learned Subordinate Judge la...
Rakhal Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Mohendra NaraIn Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.797
1. This appeal arises out of a suit No. 496 of 1915 in the Court of the Munsif of Bolpur. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs, who were five in number, for recovery of possession of certain lands on establishment of title. In respect of the shares of plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5, who were entitled to an extension of time under Sections 6 and 8 of the Limitation Act, the suit has been decreed. As regards the shares of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, the suit has been dismissed both in the trial Court and in the Court of first appeal on the ground of limitation.2. In the appeal it is first contended that the learned District Judge has erroneously used against the plaintiffs-appellants the recitals to be found in kabuliyats, and more particularly in one kabuliyat executed by the defendant Karinath Mai in favour of the landlord-defendants, who are the owners of a Mouzah contiguous to that of which the plaintiffs were the owners. If without examining the executants of the kabuliyat the recital had be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »