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.
Shamsoonessa Bibi Vs. Satya Sebak Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.415
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant after service of a notice to quit, on the allegation that be was a tenant at-will. The defendant No. 1, the tenant, had transferred the greater portion of the land to the defendant No. 2. The defence was that the defendant No. 1 had a permanent tenure in the land, having held the same from the time of his ancestors at a rent which had not been varied, that the notice to quit was not sufficient, and that the defendants were not liable to be ejected.2. The Courts below concurred in decreeing the suit. The defendant has appealed to this Court.3. There is to doubt that the land has been held by the defendant No. 1 from the time of his ancestors, but the Courts below have found that the rent receipts produced by the defendants are not trustworthy. The learned District Judge says: 'their appeararce is suspicious, their custody has rot been properly proved and in any event they do not show that rent has been paid at a uniform ...
Golam Sattar and anr. Vs. Maharaja Sir Prodyat Kumar Tagore Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.933
1. These appeals arise out of two suits for possession of the lands in dispute on establishment of the plaintiff's title thereto.2. The plaintiff is the Zamindar of estates Nos. 3025 and 3453, within which the lands in dispute are situate. The plaintiff's father granted a Putni of estate No. 3025 which, in course of time, came into the hands of one Jogendra Kumar Chowdhury. In May 1899 the plaintiff's father caused the Putni to be sold for arrears of rent under Regulation VIII of 1819 and it was purchased by one Kashi Nath Guha. Kashi Nath did not get his name registered in the Zemindar's Sherighta and the Putni was again put up for sale on the 16th November 1899 under Regulation VIII of 1819, when it was purchased in khas by the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff's case is that his father obtained khas possession of the Putni after his purchase and was in possession of the lands in dispute until the year 1907, when a Settlement and Record of Rights were made in the District, and it was...
Bidhu Sekhar Banerjee Vs. Kuladaprasad Deghoria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal245,(1919)ILR46Cal877
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned officiating Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 19th September, 1917. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to set aside an order allowing a claim preferred under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff was a decree-holder who had obtained a decree on the 21st November, 1911. That decree, was upheld on appeal and. after that, execution proceedings were instituted and the property of the judgment-debtor was attached. Then the present defendant, who was the judgment-debtor, put in a claim on behalf of a Hindu deity of the name of Kalyaneshwari Debi, alleging that the property that had been attached was not his but was the property of the goddess. On the 20th March, 1915, the proceedings in the claim case terminated, the Judge, upholding the claim of the deity which had been preferred and only preferred by the judgment-debtor as her shebait. On the 6th March, 1916, ...
Dwarkanath Chakravarti Chowdhury Vs. Atul Chandra Chakravarti Chowdhur ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.922
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of the!3rd Court of Mymensingh, dated the 30th April 1917. The plaintiff's suit was for rent of a certain tenure formerly held by the defendants but which was sold for arrears of rent on the 8th Falgoon 1320, as appears from the judgment. The lower Court gave the plaintiff a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,191-12-6 and for cesses at the rate of Rs. 286-11-2 per year, or in all for a total sum of Rs. 5,900-14-3.2. The plaintiff appeals on two grounds. First of all he says that the Subordinate Judge should not have confined the decree, as he has done, to the security referred to in the plaint, but that he should have passed a personal decree against the defendants; and secondly, it is said that the Subordinate Judge erred in disallowing the plaintiff's claim for the Ashar Kist of 1318 as being barred by limitation.3. The necessary, facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are shortly as follows:--The father ...
Radha Lakshmi Debya and anr. Vs. Jogesh Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal128,50Ind.Cas.479
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover money under three mortgage bonds. The first two mortgages were executed by defendant No. 1 as executrix to the estate of her father-in-law Raj Kishore Chuokerbutty and the third mortgage was executed both by the defendant No. 1 and her son Rajendra, the defendant No. 2.2. It appears that Rajkishore before his death executed a Will on the 10th December 1886 appointing his daughter-in-law Radha Lakshmi, the defendant No. 1 in the present suit, as executrix. At the date of his Will, his son Rasik, husband of Radha Lakshmi, had died. She was, however, five months pregnant at the time, and the testator had two married daughters who were maintained in his house. By the Will, the testator provided that in the event of a grandson (a son of Radha Lakshmi) being born in his lifetime, or failing that, a grandson being adopted by Radha Lakshmi, she would act as executrix until the grandson born or adopted attained majority. It was further provided tha...
Bidhu Sekhar Banerjee Vs. Kuloda Prasad Deogharia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.525
Edward Fletcher, J.1. This an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 19th September 1917. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to set aside an order allowing a claim preferred under Order XXI, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff was a decree-holder who had obtained decree on the 21st November 1911. That decree was upheld on appeal, and, after that, execution proceedings were instituted and the property of the judgment-debtor was attached. Then the present defendant, who was the judgment debtor, put in a claim on behalf of a Hindu deity of the name of Kalyaneswari Devi alleging that the property that bad been attached was not his but was the property of the goddess. On the 20th March 1915 the proceedings in the claim case terminated, the Judge upholding the claim of the deity which had been preferred and only preferred by the judgment debtor as her Sbebait. On the 6th March 1916 the plaintiff...
Govinda Chandra Chakravarti Vs. Nirod Kumar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal588,50Ind.Cas.747
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts. There was a preliminary decree for accounts passed on the 2nd May 1913. A Commissioner was appointed and a final decree for accounts was made on the 31st March 1914. That decree was affirmed on appeal and a second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.2. The first question that arises is whether the Court of Appeal below was wrong in overruling the plea of limitation taken before it on the ground that no appeal had been preferred against the preliminary decree. We think that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in the view he took of the matter.3. It is contended before us that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act the suit must be dismissed even though limitation was not set up as a defence. But the defendant is precluded under Section 97 Civil Procedure Code, from disputing the correctness of the preliminary decree, assuming that the Munsif was wrong upon the question of limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge moreover point...
Taradas Bhattacharjee Vs. Jnanendra Nath Maitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal256,50Ind.Cas.802
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for establishment of the plaintiff's title to 2/3rds share of four plots of land and for confirmation of possession.2. This property appears to have been sold in the year 1894 in execution of a decree against the plaintiff and purchased by one Rajendra. There was another sale of the interest of the plaintiff and his brother in the year 1898 and the defendants purchased the property at that sale. In 1901 there was a conveyance executed in respect of the property by Rajendra in favour of the plaintiff. A suit was instituted, however, by the plaintiff's daughter on the basis of that conveyance against the defendants on the ground that the purchase was really made with the funds snubbed by her in the name of the plaintiff. That suit was decreed by the Court of first instance in favour of the plaintiff's daughter. On appeal by the defendants, the suit was dismissed and the decree of the lower Appellate Court was confirmed on second anneal on the ground th...
Abdul Sovan Vs. Lakshmi Prasad Agarwala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal55(2),50Ind.Cas.870
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Howrah, dated the 30th November 1916. The plaintiff prays for a declaration of his title to two plots of land as the suit now stands, namely, the 17 cottas of item Ka and 6 cottas out of item Kha of the schedule to the plaint. He claims half share of these properties. The title that the plaintiff sets up is this. He says that his father was one Fateh Ali. His mother was one of the wives of Fateh Ali and she predeceased her-husband. When Fateh Ali died, the plaintiff was of the tender age of four years. His step-brother, the defendant No. 4, was then aged 5 years. Upon the death of the father, the orphan plaintiff was left absolutely destitute according to his story and he was removed from the place where he was living at the date of his father's death to Chittagong. For a period of about 35 years nothing was heard of the plaintiff, In the meantime, the Marwari defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›