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.
Nasir Mandal and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.154
1. We think that this Rule must be discharged. The only question is whether the suit was within time. The suit was filed on a bond which was payable on the last day of Chait 1321 B.S. (=13th April 1915). The plaint was presented to the Court on 15th April 1918, and it appears from the calendar that 13th and 14th April were close holidays. It was, therefore, on the last day of limitation. When presented the plaint was insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff was given three periods in succession of seven days, seven days and five days to put in the deficit Court-fee. This he eventually put in on 3rd May 1918 within the last extension of five days granted to him on 29th April, It is suggested that the Munsif had no power to extend the time for payment of the deficit Court-fee, but it is clear that the Court has such power.That will appear from the wording of Order VII, Rule 11(c), Civil Procedure Code. It has been further suggested that under that rule, the Court had power to extend the per...
Kailash Chandra Banik and ors. Vs. Latifannessa Khatun Wife of Kazi Ab ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal278,51Ind.Cas.556
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Faridpore, dated the 12th May 1917. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 13,000 odd alleged by them to be due upon a mortgage for Rs. 5,000 dated the 1st July 1907.2. The mortgage in suit is Exhibit 2 and it purports to be executed by Abdus Samad Kaji, Abdul Majid Kaji, Abdurab Kaji and by three ladies, Latifannessa, Mobarakannessa and Jahurannessa, The first three persons signed the document but Latifannessa, Mobarakannessa and Johurannessa signed and affixed their mark by the pen of Kalai Bepari, The mortgage recites a sum of Rs. 1,600 due to the mortgagee, Kailash Chandra Banik, and a present advance of Rs. 3,400 taken in cash. The interest is one per cent. per mensem and there is a provision for the payment of compound interest. The writer of the document appears to be one Kalai Bepari and there are some seven witnesses to the document itself, three of whom have been called before us.3. The other ...
Kamini Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Hira Lal Pal Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal773,51Ind.Cas.736
Shamswl Huda, J.1. The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and need only be briefly recapitulated. Plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendant No. 2 and obtained an ex parte decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the 24 Pergannas. Subsequently on defendant No. 2 giving security for payment of any money that might be decreed in the suit, the ex parte decree was by consent set aside. Ultimately plaintiffs obtained a decree against the defendant No. 2 for Rs. 12,579 odd. The decree was then transferred to the Dacca Court and was executed as a money decree, and some of the properties hypothecated in the security bond and situated within that district were sold and purchased by the plaintiffs. A balance of about Rs. 7,000 was still left and the decree was then transferred to the District of Faridpur. In execution some other properties included in the security bond were sold and purchased by the plaintiffs on the 23rd of September 191...
Profulla Kumar Bose and anr. Minors, by their Mother, Next Friend and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.224
Richardson, J.1. In this case the defendant No. 1 employed the defendant No. 2 to take delivery of a parcel of jute which he had dispatched to the Chitpur station of the East Indian Railway. The jute was consigned by the defendant No. 1 to himself, so that the railway receipt was made out in his name as consignee. Without endorsing the receipt he entrusted it to the defendant No. 2 for the purpose of obtaining delivery. The defendant No. 2, therefore, had implied authority to do all that was necessary for that purpose, including authority to endorse the receipt in the name of the defendant No. 1.2. What happened was that the defendant No, 2 took the receipt to the plaintiffs, and representing himself to be the partner of the defendant No. 1, asked for a loan for which he offered the receipt as a, pledge. The plaintiffs requested him to get the receipt endorsed by the consignee. Two days later the defendant No. 2 again presented the receipt to the plaintiffs with an endorsement upon it ...
Ramesh Chandra Acharjee Chowdhury Vs. EasIn Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.71
Shamsul Huda, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit for accounts instituted by the plaintiff, who is the part proprietor of certain properties, against the defendant who was his Tahsildar. In addition to the ordinary claim for an account of receipts and disbursements there was a claim for damages on the allegation that the defendant had fraudulently and in collusion with the tenants allowed large sums of money to be barred by limitation. The allegation in the plaint was traversed in the written statement. There was a preliminary decree for account against the defendant. A Commissioner was appointed to examine the accounts and finally the matter came up before the Munsif, who decreed the suit in part and included in that decree a sum of Rs. 217-5-0, on the ground that this amount was not realised from the tenants on account of the default of the defendant and became barred.2. The lower Appellate Court has set aside the decree of the Munsif so far as this amount is concerned. The sums whi...
Ramgopal Mandal and ors. Vs. Kumar Kamala Ranjan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.955
Charles Chitty, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs were the Dar patnidars and they were suing the Zemindar and the Patnidars for possession of certain Chowkidari Chakran lands which had bier resumed and settled by Government with' the Zemindar. In their plaint the plaintiffs stated that the Settlement was made by the Government under the provisions of Acts VI of 1870 on 16th May l999 and they further alleged that the cause of action arose oil that day, The suit was originally filed in the Munsifs Court on 15th May 1911, one day within 12 years from the data specified in the plaint. On 4th May 1912 the plaint was returned by the Munsif for presentation to the proper Court, the Munsif finding that he had no jurisdiction. The' Munsif directed that it should be presented to the proper Court within one month. The plaint was actually filed in the Subordinate Judge's Court on 1st June 1912.2. Two questions arose? (1) whether the M...
Abdul Hakim Mia and ors. Vs. Pana Mia Miaji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal293,51Ind.Cas.494
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned District Judge of Noakhali reversing the decision of the Additional Munsif of Lakshipur. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover possession. The point turns on this. First of all, there are various plots of land sought to be recovered. We can dispose of shortly plots Nos. 7 to 24, because the finding of fact is conclusive with regard to them. The difficulty is occasioned by endeavouring to discover what was really determined and what was the finding of fact with reference to plots Nos. 1 to 6. As to those plots, the learned Judge remarks thus: 'As to the other plots,' that is plots Nos. 1 to 6, 'no rent was paid to them,' that is, the plaintiffs, 'from 1288 to 1312 and I cannot believe that they did not know that their title was denied and that rents were being paid to Pana Mia. I believe that they fully knew all this and still they took no steps for over 25 years.' The case of the pl...
Kali Saday Ghoshal Vs. Siddheswar Banerjee, Chairman, Madral Narayanpu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.658
1. This Rule is directed against an order made under Section 37 of the Criminal Procedure Code making absolute a conditional order made under Section 133 of that Code. The case relates to certain pillars, which, it is alleged, the petitioner has erected on a public road in the village of Madral. The conditional order required the petitioner to demolish the pillars or to show cause why the pillars should not be demolished. The petitioner did show cause and the Magistrate went into evidence. The case pursued a regular course until, without notice to the parties, the learned Magistrate, who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, went to the spot himself and conducted in the absence of the parties a local enquiry on his own account. On that occasion the Magistrate prepared a plan of the road, and when we come to his judgment it, is plain that the Magistrate has decided this case not on the evidence adduced by the parties but entirely upon the result of his own enquiry and on the basis of the plan ...
Parameshwar Daw and ors. Vs. Ananth Bandhu Daw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal61,51Ind.Cas.333
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 21st May 1917, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought to annul an encumbrance, that right being given under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, on the footing that the plaintiff had purchased the property in execution of a rent decree and that he had been in possession. The plaintiff also asked for a further relief, namely, for a declaration that a decree in a mortgage suit obtained by the defendants was not enforceable. The facts are clearly found by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. What happened is this: This mortgage which was a small mortgage was dated in 1905. A suit was brought to enforce the mortgage in July 1913 and a decree was obtained for Rs. 400. The plaintiff purchased in execution of a rent decree the property on the 17th December 1913. The amount he paid into Court was more than sufficient to satisfy the rent decree and, th...
Guru Prasanna Roy Vs. Har (Hari) Kumar Majumdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.817
1. In this case proceeding a were taken against the 2nd party in the district of Noakhally under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By an order of this Court the case was transferred to the district of Tipperah arid Mr. H.K. Das Gupta, First Class Magistrate, ordered the 2nd party to be bound down to keep the peace. The 2nd party applied to the District Magistrate to cancel the bond under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the District Magistrate of Tipperah has, after consideration of the evidence in the case, come to the conclusion that the order of Mr. H.K. Dus Gupta was wrong on the merits and he has accordingly set it aside.2. This Rule was obtained by the first party calling upon the District Magistrate of Tipperah to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside.3. It is contended in support of this Bale that the Magistrate empowered to deal with a matter of this kind under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, is the Magistrate in whose dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »