Kolkata Court April 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.
Jidda Jan Bibi Widow of Sheikh Azim Vs. Sheikh Baktar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.420
Shamsul Huda, J.1. The defendant No. 1 is the appellant before us. The appeal is can-final to the properties raferred to in the sohedale3 Nos. 1 and 3 in the plaint. The. plaintiffs claimed a share in these properties as the residuary heirs of one Azim. The defendant No. is the widow of Azim, and she contested the plaintiffs' claim by alleging that Azim had executed a deed of heba-bil ewaz in her favour in lieu of dower and a tasbi. The first Court considered that the consideration alleged in the heba-bil-ewaz did aatually pass On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has taken a different view of the fasts., He holds that the claim for dower, which was one of the considerations for the heba as wall as the giving of the tasbi in exchange have not been proved and has accordingly decreed the plaintiff a' suit. It has been urged before us on the authority of the case of Rahimjan Bibi v. Imanian Bibi 15 Ind. Cas. 698; 17 C. L. J. 173, that, even if the pissing of the consideration is not p...
Nitya Kali Dutt Vs. Sarat Chandra Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal333,51Ind.Cas.866
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. The appeal arises oat of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to, and recovery of possession of a mango garden known as tin takia amra bagicha.2. The garden appertains to a taluq which, it is admitted by both parties, was amicably partitioned with three hisyas, namely, one of 8 1/2 annas, another of 5 1/2 annas and a third of 2-annas share. The plaintiff's case is that the 8 1/2-annas share again was amicably divided between two brothers Nur Ali and Sher Ali and that the disputed garden fell into the share of Nur Ali who held it as his khamar.3. The Court of first instance found that although there was no formal partition, the whole garden was in the exclusive possession of Nur Ali and his heirs. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove either an actual partition or that the garden had been in the exclusive possession of her vendor Nur Ali and his heirs.4. The plaintiff has appealed to this...
Surendra Nath Pramanik Vs. Amrita Lal Pal Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.936
1. These appeals are directed against two orders made in a Probate proceeding, one for fresh security to be furnished by the executors, another for cancellation of the Probate on the refusal of the executors to comply with the order for fresh security. The events which led up to these two orders may he briefly recited.2. One Manohar Pal Chaudhuri made a testamentary disposition of his properties and died on the 9th September 1909. The executors named in the Will applied for Probate on the 5th December 1909 in the Court of the District Judge of Nadia. The Will was proved in due course, and on the 31st January 1910, the District Judge made the following order:Will proved; application for Probate granted; bond for Rs. 16,000 with two sureties to be filed on or before 2nd March 1910.3. The petitioners for Probate applied for and obtained an extension of time, and the bond filed on the 8th March was accepted on the 4th April 1910. Probate was thereafter made ready and delivered to the execu...
Debendra Narayan Singh Vs. Narendra Narayan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.976
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of damages and of possession of immoveable properties and of a money-lending busine Sections. The father of the plaintiff died on the 5th November 1899. He had made a testamentary disposition of his properties (now in suit) on the 4th March 1881. On the 27th April 1901 his widow, the mother of the plaintiff, obtained a Probate of the Will and took possession of the estate as executrix. Differences arose, however, amongst the members of the family, and in 1903 the plaintiff instituted a suit for construction of the Will and for administration of the estate, joining as defendants his brother and his nephews (the sons of a deceased brother). On the 13th March 1906 a consent decree was made in that litigation which had been brought up to this Court by way of appeal. Under that decree, the plaintiff became entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 15,000 from the estate and for that purpose to be placed in possession for a period of five y...
Srimati Padmabuti Dassi and anr. Vs. Bonomali Seal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.566
Greaves, J.1. This is a suit to recover (1) Nos. 35 and 33, Blackburn Lane, (2) No. 44, Mechua Bazar Street, (3) a two-thirds undivided share, in No. 1, Old China Bazar Street, and (4) the sale proceeds of Nos. 11, 12 and 13, Ram Mohun Ghose's Lane, under the following circumstances. One Ananta Ram Seal died on the 4th March 1907 intestate possessed of the premises in suit, leaving a son the defendant Bonomali Seal. Bonomali had a son Durga Charan, who died on the 13th July 1918 without issue but leaving two widows, the plaintiffs. On the 2nd April 1908 Sreemutty Debjani Dassi petitioned this Court for an enquiry as to whether Bonomali Seal was or was not of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs. On the 6th April 1908 an order was made on this petition which was entitled ' In the matter of Lunacy Act XXXIV of 1858 and In the matter of clause 17 of the Charter and In the matter of Bonomali Seal a lunatic ' by Woodroffe, J., directing an enquiry to be held before...
indra NaraIn Shao Vs. Dijabar Samanta and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.849
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage-bond. Various defences were raised in the case.2. The Courts below have found in favour of the plaintiff upon all points, except that the lower Appellate Court has held that the suit is not governed by Article 132 Schedule II of the Limitation Act and that as it was instituted more than 6 years after the due date of payment, it was barred by limitation.3. The mortgagor borrowed a certain quantity of paddy from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the paddy with interest at a certain rate mentioned in the bond. It is mentioned in the bond that the paddy was sold for Rs. 192. Then the stipulation in the bond is as follows: 'If I do not repay the paddy within the period aforesaid, then on the expiry of the aforesaid period you will be entitled to recover the price of paddy with interest thereon at the rate of 1 1/2 pice per rupee per month, together with costs of Court by attachment and sale of the aforesaid lands (together with the crops t...
Rakhal Chandra Purkait Vs. Sudhindra Nath Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal991
Chatterjea and Panton, JJ.1. This appeal is against an order of the District Judge of the 24 Perganahs under Section 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, by which he held that the alleged transfer of certain property made by an insolvent in favour of the appellant was void as against the Receiver.2. The insolvent Braja Nath executed a deed of sale in favour of the appellant Rakhal on the 9th July 1913. Braja Nath applied to be declared insolvent on the 7th May 1915 and the order of adjudication was made on the 25th July 1915. The Receiver in insolvency applied to the District Judge on the 11th April, 1916, for avoiding the transfer. The learned District Judge held that the transfer was void having been made within two years before the date of the presentation of the petition for insolvency, and upon the evidence he found that the transfer was without consideration and did not pass any title to the appellant.3. Now, Section 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act lays down that any transfer...
Rakhal Chandra Purkait Vs. Sudhindra Nath Bose, Receiver of the Estate ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.747
1. This appeal is against an order of the District Judge of the 24-Pergan-nahs under Section 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, by which be held that the alleged transfer of certain property made by an insolvent in favour of the appellant was void as against the Receiver.2. The insolvent Brojo Nath executed a deed of sale in favour of the appellant Rakhal on the 9th July 1913. Brojo Nath applied, to be declared insolvent on' the 7th May 1915 and the order of adjudication was made on the 25th July 1915. The Receiver in insolvency applied to the District Judge on the 11th April 1916 for avoiding the transfer. The learned District Judge held that the transfer was void having been made within two years before the date of the presentation of the petition for insolvency, and upon the evidence he found that the transfer was without consideration and did not pass any title to the appellant.3. Now, Section 36 of the Provincial Insolvency Act lays down that any transfer of property, not being ...
Rajani Nath Pramanik and ors. Vs. Manaram Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal151,53Ind.Cas.968
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's Karsha right to the lands in dispute, and also for a declaration that an entry in the Record of Rights with respect to the holding is in-correct. The plaintiff also prayed for confirmation of his possession of the lands.2. The Record of Rights was finally published on the 16th December 1907 and the suit was brought on the 6th January 1914, i. e., more than 6 years from the date of the final publication of the Record of Rights The cause of action was stated in the plaint to have arisen on the 6th January 1908, the date of the certificate of final publication of the Record.3. Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit for a declaration that an entry in the Record of Rights is incorrect, and the period of six years is to be computed from the date when the cause of action arose. It is contended that the cause of action arose on 6th January, the date of signing of the certificate of the final publication. Now ...
Purusottum Das NaraIn Das Vs. Louis Dreyfus and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.325
Rankin, J.1. This is an application by the seller under certain contracts to have an award taken off the file, as being bad and not valid against the firm. There is one question on the contract which I cannot now decide, because it requires investigation by means of oral evidence, and, that is the question whether on the contract which was originally entered into the words which now appear on the top of the exhibit before me (' Calcutta ' will be read instead of Karachi') were really there; whether they have been interpolated afterwards for the purpose of making it appear that the contract was different from what it really was. I have to consider whether this award is invalid apart from the determination one way or another of that question and three points have been taken before me independently of that more troublesome point. The first point) is that the award is bad because it is against a firm. The second point is that the award is had because the arbitrators did not give any notice...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »