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.
Sricharan Bhandari Vs. Makhan Lal Bhandari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.378
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to recover a certain parcel of land on establishment of the plaintiffs' title. The plaintiffs' case was that when the plaintiffs' father and the father of the defendant separated in 1281, the parcel of land now in question fell to their father's share on partition2. The decisions of the Courts below proceed largely on what is described as an award made by certain arbitrators on the 21st Chait 1281.3. The objections taken to this award before us are that out of 9 arbitrators who were appointed by the parties only 8 have signed the award; secondly, that they did not exercise their judgment as arbitrator! but merely recorded an arrangement amicably arrived at between the parties; thirdly, that it is thus a deed of partition the registration of which is compulsory; and lastly it is contended that a certain mortgage bond has been improperly admitted in evidence.4. It would seem to be the case that 9 arbitrators were appointed to settle the dispute...
Sridhar Chandra Maiti Vs. Ram Gobinda Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.608
Teunon, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a mortgage. The bond recites that at the time of its execution 3 bishes 4 hurts of paddy were owing by the defendant in the present suit to the plaintiff. It next provides that the paddy should be repaid or delivered by certain instalments and that on unpaid instalments interest should run at the rate of 3 chattaks per kurt.2. In reliance upon the decision of a Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of Bash Bihari Das v. Kunjabihari Patra 37 Ind. Cas. 805 : 24 C.L.J. 348. it is contended by the appellant that the present suit is not one brought to enforce payment of money charged upon immoveable property and that the rule of limitation applicable is the rule to be found in Article 116 or Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. If the six years' rule of Limitation be applicable, it is not and cannot be contested that the suit when brought was out of time. Thus the question is whether the suit out of which th...
Biseswar Roy Vs. Pitamber Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal400,51Ind.Cas.44
Walmsley, J.1. These four appeals arise from one judgment which disposed of four appeals: those four appeals again arose from one judgment which disposed of four suits tried together.2. All the suits were for ejectment after notice.3. It will be convenient to deal first with Second Appeal No. 907. This arises from Appeal No. 29 and Suit No. 2102. It has been found that the plaintiff has a permanent mokurrari mourasi interest in the land. The defendants are a pardanashin lady and a minor boy, the heirs of a Mukhtear named Shahar Muhammad. The land from which the plaintiff wants to eject them is situated in the Municipality of Jamalpur, and a dwelling-house was built on it by Shahar Muhammad: he paid a rent of Rs. 3 a year, but he had no permanent interest. The plaintiff's case is that he caused a notice to be served on the defendants through the Civil Court on Bhadra 6th, 1321, calling upon the defendants to vacate the land in the following month of Aswin.4. The first Court held that th...
Ramendra Nath Roy Vs. Brajendra Nath Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal831
Sanderson, C.J.1. I have read the judgment of my learned brother with which 1 agree and I have little to add.2. In my judgment the plaintiff was not a mere broker in the transaction in question.3. The learned Judge who tried the case referred to a usage as being so well known that the Courts might almost take judicial notice of it, and further said it was admitted by both sides; but he did not find exactly what the usage is.4. I think, however, that the real position of the plaintiff was that he was acting as a broker and paid by brokerage, but liable to both the seller and the purchaser as on a 'principal' contract, and that, consequently, the plaintiff had a, corresponding right to enforce the contract and was entitled to sue in respect thereof.5. The learned Counsel for Messrs. Cartwright & Co. contended that this right to enforce the contract would not include the right of stoppage in transit, as that right belongs to an unpaid vendor only under Section 99 of the Contract Act of 18...
Sarat Chandra Ghose Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal861
Beachcroft, J.1. The first question that arises for our decision in this appeal, is one that is not likely often to arise but is of considerable public importance. The question is whether an appeal lies to this Court against an order made by the Judge under Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894). The matter arises in this way. The appellant was the owner of a brickfield a small portion of which has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The owner applied that the whole should be acquired, alleging that his brickfield was a 'manufactory' within the meaning of Section 49, of the Act. The Judge decided against him and the matter has been brought here on appeal. The question is whether an appeal lies against the Judge's order and that depends on the meaning which is to be given to the term 'award' in Section 54 of the Act, which provides that an appeal shall lie to this Court from the award or any part of the award of the Court in any proceedings under the Act.2. There i...
AfsuruddIn and anr. Vs. Abdul HosseIn and ors. and Akram Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.314
Walmsey, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are now respondents, brought the suit to recover possession of a small piece of land. They failed in the first Court but on appeal they were successful. About the land comprised in schedule kha there is now no dispute. The appeal relates to the land comprised in schedule ga. It appears that the defendants took settlement from the landlord in Aswin 1319. The boundary of the land on the south was described as khas patit. In Pous of the following year the plaintiffs took settlement from the same landlord. Within their patta the northern boundary was given as land comprised in the jote of the defendants; so that the question relates to the boundaries on the south of the defendants' land and on the north of the plaintiffs' land. The learned Munsif, as I have said, found in favour of the defendants. On appeal the question which appears to have been argued before the learned Judge was simply whether the land lay inside the defendants' boundary or not, and the...
Ramendra Nath Roy Vs. Brajendra Nath Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.986
Sanderson, C.J.1. I have read the judgment of my learned brother with which I agree and I have little to add.2. In my judgment the plaintiff was not a mere broker in the transaction in question.3. The learned Judge who tried the case referred to a usage as being so well known that the Courts might almost take judicial notice of it; and further said it was admitted by both sides, but he did not find exactly what the usage is.4. I think, however, that the real position of the plaintiff was that he was acting as a broker and paid by brokerage, but liable to both the seller and the purchaser as on a 'principal' contract, and that, consequently, the plaintiff had a corresponding right to enforce the contract and was entitled to sue in respect thereof.5. The learned Counsel for Messrs. Cartwright and Co. contended that this right to enforce the contract would not include the right of stoppage in transit, as that right belongs to an unpaid vendor only under Section 99 of the Contrast Act of 1...
Bhulu Beg Vs. Jatindra Nath Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.1035
1. The property in dispute in this case is alleged by the plaintiff to have belonged to one Khoda Buksh and held by the defendant No. 1 as tenant under him. Certain heirs of Khoda Buksh obtained a decree for rent against the defendant No. I and in execution of the decree put up the property to sale. The defendant No. 6 purchased it on the 13th June 1904. Formal possession was taken by the purchaser on the 29th April 1905 and in September 1910, he conveyed the lands to the plaintiff.2. The suit was for establishment of the plaintiff's title and for recovery of possession.3. The defence inter alsa was that the property did not belong to Khoda Buksh nor did the defendant No. 1 hold it under him as tenant. A question was also raised whether one Ohijuddin Ahmed had a one third share in the property .4. With regard to the last question, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that there was some nishkar property in which Ohijuddin had one-third share.5. So far as the, disputed p...
Sarat Chandra Ghose Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.732
Beachcroft, J.1. The first question, that arises for our decision in this appeal is one that is not likely often to arise but is of considerable public importance. The question is whether an appeal lies to this Court against an order made by the Judge Sunder Section 49 of the Land inquisition Act I of 1894 The matter arises in this way. The appellant was the owner of a brickfield, a small portion of which has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, The owner applied that the whole should be acquired, alleging that his brickfield was a manufactory within the meaning of Section 49 of the Act. The Judge decided against him and the matter has been brought hers on appeal. The question is whether an appeal lies against the Judge's order and that depends on the meaning which is to be given to the term 'award' in Section 54 of the Act, which provides that an appeal shall lie to this Court from the award or any part of the award of the Court in any proceedings under the Act.2. There is no...
Bhairab Chandra Barua Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal433,(1919)ILR46Cal807
Richardson, J.1. I agree in the conclusion, arrived at by my learned, brother.2. We recently had occasion, in Harihar Roy v. Emperor Harihar Roy v. Emveror (Criminal Revision No. 988 of 1918, 22 Nov., 1918. Richardson and Shams-ul-Huda JJ. This is a Rule upon the District Magistrate of Jalpaiguri to show cause why the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner under Section 384 of the Penal Code in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Jalpaiguri should not be quashed, or in the alternative why the case should not be transferred to some other district for trial.The petitioner is a police-officer. In June, 1918, the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri, by a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner made certain charges of extortion against the petitioner who had been suspended. The letter, on receipt in the Deputy Commissioner's office appears, to have been placed before Mr. A. Majid, Deputy Magistrate, who issued a warrant for the petitioner's arrest, and there by institute...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »