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.
Srimatya Baroda Dasi Vs. Upendranath Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal330(2),52Ind.Cas.562
Charles Chitty, J.1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of Baroda Dasi, whose application to sue in forma pauperis has been refused by the Subordinate Judge. I feel some doubt whether the case comes within the provisions of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, but, apart from that difficulty, I do not think that the application should be granted. It appears that on 17th September 1917 the petitioner made a similar application before the Subordinate Judge which was registered, and notices were issued to the Collector and the opposite party. The case was adjourned on several occasions. On the 15th December 1917 the Government Pleader submitted a report after enquiry to the effect that the petitioner was not a pauper. The case was then further adjourned and ultimately came on for hearing on 23rd February 1918. On that occasion the petitioner applied for permission to withdraw from her application. The learned Judge thought that Order XXIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, relating to withd...
Parafulla NaraIn Majumdar Vs. Palku (Pulku in Vakalatnamah) Mahammad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal77(2),53Ind.Cas.122
Fletcher, J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the decision of the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge of Dinajpore, reversing the decision of the officiating second Munsif at Jalpaiguri. There were two suits for rent brought for two holdings, one at the rate of Rs. 50 and the other at the rate of Rs. 30-10-0 per annum. What has been found as a fact is this: That there never is or never was a jama of Rs. 50 and that there is not a jama of Rs. 30-10-0. The true facts are these: There was a jama of Rs, 30-10-0. But settlement proceedings had taken place in the estate' which was a Government khas Mahal, and the settlement rent roll prepared under the provisions of Sections 104A to 104F of the Bengal Tenancy Act had been incorporated in the Record of Rights finally published. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 104J of the Bengal Tenancy Act, no evidence could be given to show that the rent appearing in that Record of Rights was not fair and equitable. It is said, however ...
Janardan Shaha Poddar Vs. Radha Bullav Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.898
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts.2. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 carried on a partnership business from the year 1311. It Was closed at the end Of 1313, corresponding to April 1907.3. The suit was brought oh the 8th March 1912, that is more than three years after the dissolution of the partnership. Prima facie, the suit was barred by limitation. But the plaintiff relies upon a document called an abichalnama as containing an acknowledgment which saves the claim from being barred.4. The learned District Judge was of opinion that there was an acknowledgment of liability contained in the document and accordingly held that the suit was not barred. The defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court.5. Now, this abichalnama states that the parties (the plaintiff and the defendant) carried on an ijmali business from 1311 up to 13l3 B. S. and that it had been alosed since then. Then it goes on to say: 'At present it has become necessary to make an adjustment of accounts and...
Kader Bux Vs. Beni Madhab Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal780,52Ind.Cas.327
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal has been argued at considerable length by the learned Vakil for the appellant, but the points seem to have no foundation at all.2. The first point urged is that this being a waqf-property--the tenure having been possessed by a waqif--the mutwalli, knowing that the tenure could be annulled, had no power to enter into an agreement with the purchaser at a revenue sale for the grant of a new lease in place of the lease that was liable to be annulled. The learned Vakil for the appellant has given us no decision that the transaction is outside the scope of the powers of a trustee. Apart from authority, I decline to accept the view. In addition to this, the matter was not raised in the lower Courts. It is not a pure question of law whether the lease is binding; and the lower Appellate Court has found that rent was being paid by the mutwalli under the terms of the new lease.3. The next point was that there was no proof that the plaintiff was an auction purchas...
Dinabandhu Nandi Choudhury Vs. Mannulal Parik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.443
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rent in respect of the land described in the plaint. The defence was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the land.2. It appears that a certain Zemindari belonged to one Bazlur Rahim and his sister. His sister sold a six-annas share of the Zemindari to one Lachmipat Singh on the 1st December 1875. The remaining 10-annas of the Zamindari was sold in execution of a decree against Bazlur Rahim or his sister and the auction-purchaser of the said 10-annas share took possession of the entire sixteen annas. Lachmipat thereupon brought a suit for recovery of possession of the undivided 6-annas share of the Zamindari which had been conveyed to him by Bazlur Rahim's sister. He obtained a decree on the 23rd August 1880 and on the 23rd November of the same year, Lachmipat made a gift of the 6-annas share of the Zemindari in favour of one Mirza Ahmed Ali Beg. '3. It appears f...
Hazi Mohamed Nagor Vs. Abdul Jalil and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal842,53Ind.Cas.597
Asutosh Chaudhuri, J.1. The plaintiff sued for declaration that he was entitled to a 12 annas share of the properties left by his brother, Mahommed Chhaber. He challenged two wakfs executed by his brother, one on the 17th Jane 1904, and the, other on the 12th January 1912. He also challenged a hiba bil ewaz in favour of the 4th defendant, an infant. This infant is the son of one Jalil, who is defendant No. 2, Jail was taken into the family by the settlor when he was quite a young boy and Jail was brought us in his family. The defendants are the settlor wife, Jail, Jail's wife and this infant son. The documents were all challenged in the plaint as having been executed secretly and in collusion, and it was said that the settlor was not in possession of sound sense and he did not execute them honestly and independently and knowing their purport and meaning. The bulk of the evidence given in this case was on those points, to show his mental incapacity and secret and collusive dealing with ...
BipIn Chandra Barua Vs. Jagat Chandra Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal344,51Ind.Cas.962
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder arising out of execution proceedings. The question is whether the holding, which is found to be a non-transferable one, was saleable in execution of a money-decree where the landlord had given his consent to the sale but the tenant had objected. The point is covered by the decision of this Court in Narayani v. Nabin Chandra Chowdhari 36 Ind. Cas. 803 ; 21 C.W.N. 400 ; 26 C.L.J. 351 ; 44 C. 720 where it was distinctly laid down that an occupancy holding or any part of it could not be sold in execution of a decree for money obtained against the raiyat when the raiyat objected even if the landlords gave their consent to the sale. Their Lordships who decided that case were of opinion that their decision necessarily followed upon the Full Bench decision in Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy Chowdhuri 27 Ind. Cas. 6l ; 18 C.W.N. 971 ; 42 C. 172 ; 20 C.L.J. 52 (F.B.). We find that the case first above cited has been followed in this Court in Ram Sundar Karm...
Ramesh Chandra Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.660
1. The appellant, Ramesh Chandra Das, was tried by the Sessions Judge of Chittagong and a Jury on three charges of perjury framed under Section 193 of the Penal Code. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty and the Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant on each charge to three years' rigorous imprisonment, directing at the same time that the sentences should run down concurrently.2. The charges relate to a Will bearing date the 19th August 1913, alleged to have been executed by the late Dr. Rajani Kanta Das Gupta who died on the 28th August 1913. He left him surviving five daughters and two brothers, Ramesh Chandra Das, the appellant, and Mahendra Lal Das, a Pleader who died on the 8th April 1914. Of the daughters, the eldest only was married at the time of her father's death; three have since been married and the youngest is still unmarried.3. The valuation of the estate of the deceased accepted by the Collector for purposes of duty was Rs. 32,715, from which Rs. 4,250 must be deducted ...
Ram Gobinda Chowdhury Vs. Rajani Kanta Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.570
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 14th August 1917, reversing the decision of the Third Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to enforce a mortgage which was executed in his favour by the defendants first party. The defendants second party subsequently purchased the equity of redemption Only one of them, namely the defendant No. 13, contested the suit, He was also the landlord of the tenure and his case was that the mortgaged property had been sold under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act in execution of a rent decree and purchased by him and the other defendants second party and that proper notice had been served under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to annul the encumbrances. The question, therefore, is: 'Was the encumbrance annulled?' The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found that the encumbrance was annulled, and it is said that that is...
Arur Singh Vs. Partab Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal795,53Ind.Cas.426
Martineau, J.1. The plaintiffs sue for money due on two bonds, dated the 2nd November 1908 and the 23rd July 1914, and have been given a decree. The questions are only whether the suit on the first bond is within time by reason of an acknowledgment contained in the second one and whether consideration passed for the first bond.2. The bond of 1914 makes mention of there being a separate bond for Rs. 430 15 0 (i. e., the bond of the 2nd November 1908). This clearly implies that money was due to the plaintiff separately on the other bond. The learned District Judge holds that an acknowledgment of liability need not be express, but may be implied, and this view is supported by the statement of the law given on page 104 of Rustomji's Law of Limitation, 2nd Edition, by Gopalrao v. Harilal 9 Bom L. R. 715 at p. 718, and by Maniram Seth v. Seth Rupchand 33 C. 1047 at p. 1057 (P. C.): 4 C. L. J. 94; 8 Bom. L. R. 501 10; C. W. N. 847; 1 M. L. T. 199; 3 A. L. J. 525; 16 M. L. J. 300; 2.N. L. R. l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »