Kolkata Court March 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.
Rambishen Dutt Vs. Haripada Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.389
1. This is an appeal by the 1st defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land upon establishment of title. The disputed area lies in lnt Nim tikuri, which was held by a family of Dutts in Zemindari and Patni interest in equal proportions. The appellant had a one fourth share in this property, which he mortgaged to the father of the plaintiffs on the 31st May 1892; he subsequently granted to the plaintiffs a second mortgage of his Patni interest on the 13th November 1803 and of his Zamindari interest on the 11th November 1904. The plaintiffs enforced these securities, and, at execution salts, purchased the Zamindari interest on the 19th November 1901 and the Patni interest on the 3rd July 1911. The land in suit is in the actual occupation of the Domes (the second and third defendants) who hold as sub tenants on payment of paddy rent. The case for the plaintiffs is that, notwithstanding their purchase of the Zemindari and Patni interests of the first defendant, they have not bee...
Kanailal Jalan Vs. Manoo Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal269,51Ind.Cas.394
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is an one fourth share of a garden which was owned at one time by Gopal Charan Ghose. He left four sons, Chandranath, Suryyakumar, Satyacharan and Kartik charan. Chandranath died in or about the year 1892 and left a son Mohinimohan; the latter died before the commencement of this suit, which concerns the one fourth share of Chandranath. There are three rival claimants to this share, namely, the plaintiff, the Das defendant, and the Maharaja of Burdwan, who was added as a defendant by order of Court, dated 23rd April 1912: The Maharaja of Burdwan purchased the share in execution of a money decree obtained by him against Mohinimohan; the sale took place on the 15th February 1896 and was confirmed on the 18th March 1896. The 1st defendant obtained a lease of the entire garden from Mohinimohan and his three uncles on the 2nd July 907. The plaintiff purchased the share at a sale held on the 2nd September 1907 by the...
Joy Gobinda Hajam Vs. Musammat Hazira Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.307
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff has a right to obtain a settlement of the lands in suit.2. It appears that the lands were waste lands which were cleared of jungle and made fit for cultivation by the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained settlement for one year at a time for two consecutive years. After the expiry of the period of settlement, both the plaintiff and the defendant applied for settlement. The plaintiff alleges that the settlement was at first made with him, but subsequently the Collector set aside that settlement and it was made with the defendant.3. The Court of first instance found the facts in favour of the plaintiff and gave a decree in his favour. The lower Appellate Court did not go into the facts of the case, hut reversed the decree of the Court of first instance on the ground that the Civil Court had no power to go into the question.4. The case is governed by the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation.5. The Regulat...
Alijan Bibi and ors. Vs. Srimati Safia Bibi, Widow of Mohamed Yousuf a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.623
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the statement of the law as made by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court is correct. What is found is this: The plaintiff-respondent is a Mahomedan widow. She is entitled to a dower from her late husband's estate. She is in possession of a small piece of land of about 7 bighas, and the Judge seems to consider that the income of that land would not exceed the amount growing due for interest on the amount of arrears of the dower. In that view of the case, the learned Judge declined to decree the appeal before him or to direct the plaintiff-respondent, the widow, to account for the profits that she received from the land. I think that is right. Of course, the appellants have their matter in their hands. They can pay to the widow her dower and get rid of her and the sooner they pay the dower the quicker they get rid of her. That is the only remedy for the appellants to pursue, that is, to pay off the widow and to get the land.2. The ...
Kedar Nath Sen and ors. Vs. Idu Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal331,51Ind.Cas.746
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Baukura, dated the 31st July 1917, affirming the decision of the 1st Munsif at Bishenpur. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover possession of certain immoveable property, which they said they had purchased in execution of a mortgage decree passed in a suit which was brought to enforce a mortgage held by the plaintiffs' father. The defendants claimed as purchasers under a rent decree obtained by the landlords of the mortgagor of the plaintiffs, that is defendants Nos. 4 to 6. The competition, therefore, was, it is quite clear, one between the purchasers in execution of a mortgage-decree of the tenant's interest and the purchasers in execution of a rent decree obtained against the mortgagor, the tenant. The cases in this Court are quite clear that between those interests the purchaser in execution of the rent decree has priority over the purchase in execution of the mortgage decree. The c...
Kalu Vs. Hamijuddi Howladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.862
1. Both the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 claimed title to the disputed land under leases said to have been granted by the landlord. The defendants relied upon a lease executed in the year 1312, and the plaintiff relied upon another lease executed in 1319. The Court of first instance held that the lease in favour of the defendant was proved and that, therefore, the plaintiff could not succeed. On appeal that decree was set aside by the learned Subordinate Judge and the defendant No. 2 has appealed to this Court.2. Two questions have been raised in this Court, the first is that the lease under which the plaintiffs claimed is void inasmuch as a fictitious entry of a plot of land was made in it in order to give jurisdiction to the Sub-Registrar of Jhalakati in whose Registration Office the document was registered, and reliance was placed on a recent decision in the case of Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri v. Srimati Hari Dasi Debi 23 Ind. Cas. 637; 18 C.W.N. 817 ; 27 M.L.J. 80 ; 41 C. 972 ;...
Satish Chandra Kanungoe Vs. Nishi Chandra Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal975,54Ind.Cas.431
Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order of the District Judge of Chittagong holding that his application to set aside a sale was barred by limitation.2. In the first place, it is doubtful whether any appeal lies; and the learned pleader for the appellant has not been able to satisfy us on this point. He concedes that if the amount of the suit was below Rs. 500 there would be no second appeal, but as to that we have not been informed.3. Turning to the merits of the application, it appears that a decree was passed in 1904 against the appellant's father. In 1911 his father died. In 1913, presumably in an application for execution, the appellant was substituted in the place of his father who had died two years before. Attachment was levied on immoveable property in the hands of the appellant. The property was brought to sale on 12th November 1915. The application now before the Court was presented on the 8th November 1916-almost a year after. It is argued for...
Nanda Lal Bose Vs. Ashutosh Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.65
1. This was a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the lower Court passed against the petitioner should not be set aside.2. The petitioner who was the manager of the estate of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 under the Court of Wards from 7th May 1911 to 30th April 1914, was defendant No. 5 in the suit. The plaintiff opposite party Was a gomasta under the Court of Wards from July 1909 to February 1910. As gomasta he deposited his Savings Bank Pass Book as security with the manager. He was dismissed in 1910 and a certain amount was found due from him on account of defalcations made by him. The petitioner, who was then the manager under the Court of Wards, withdrew a sum of Rs. 222-14-5 from the Post Office Savings Bank account with the sanction of the Collector and with the consent of and under authority from the plaintiff on the 8th July 1913. The plaintiff demanded the money from the defendant No. 5 and this was refused on the 14th September 1913. The ...
Kanai Lal Khan and ors. Vs. Srimati Toodsi Manjuri Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.21
Ernest Fletchre, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendants Nos. 4 to 8 against the decision of the learned District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 27th September 1917, affirming the decision of the Second Subordinate Judge of the same place. The suit was brought by one Srimati Tulsi Monjori Dasi, who is the wife of the second defendant, to recover, possession of certain property, or alternatively to recover the amount paid as the purchase-money at a sale in execution. The facts are perfectly simple. One Madhab Chandra Mondal held an under tenure under the defendants Nos. 4 to 8, the appellants before us. Madhab sold, his interest to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The defendant No. 2 and his co-sharer, the defendant No. 1, apparently failed to register their names in the landlords' sherista and two suits were brought by the co-sharer landlords for rent against Madhab. In execution of the decree obtained, the property was put up to sale and purchased by the plaintiff, the wife of th...
Wahed Ali Vs. Chand Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal94,52Ind.Cas.29
1. In this case the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover some money from defendants Nos. 1 to 5. In the Court of first instance a decree was passed against defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the suit was dismissed against defendant No. 1. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 preferred two separate appeals to the Subordinate Judge, who allowed those appeals and dismissed the suit as against them. Defendant No. 1 was a party respondent in both those appeals. The plaintiff applied for a review of judgment as against the defendant No. 1 on the ground that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, had been overlooked by the Court and the Pleaders at the time of the hearing, and he asked that the appeals might be re-heard against the defendant No. 1, with a view possibly to applying the provisions of that section and granting a decree against defendant No. 1. The Subordinate Judge granted the application for review and against that order the present appeals are preferred.2. A pre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »