Kolkata Court May 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.
Hari Pada Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Radha Bullav Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal360,53Ind.Cas.1007
1. We regret that we have to remand this appeal. The judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is very unsatisfactory. It is confused, ill-expressed and the learned Subordinate Judge does not seem to have applied his mind to the points for decision. He ought to remember that in trying an appeal it is his duty to come to clear findings, as they are final and this Court cannot go behind them.2. In dealing with the question whether the plaintiff is the reversionary heir of Asananda, he says: 'the learned Munsif has found that the plaintiff and Asananda and Parmananda are of the same family. Therefore, the appeal must succeed.' Then he says, the defendants could not set up a nearer heir.' It is no part of the duty of the defendants to set up any nearer heir. The whole of the onus is on the plaintiffs to show that they are the reversioners. The Subordinate Judge then says, 'so the evidence adduced by the plaintiff must be accepted as sufficient.' Probably what he intended to say was that in...
Annoda Charan Mondal Vs. Atul Chandra Malik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.197
1. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for a declaration that they were the reversioners of the estate of one Gopal Chandra Shaw,- their maternal uncle, that a mortgage which had been executed by his widow Mokhadamoyee Dassi was not operative against them and that the properties covered thereby could not be sold in execution of the decree obtained by the mortgagee against her. They also applied for a temporary injunction restraining the sale and for a declaration that they were not affected by the mortgage deed or the decree or by the sale of the mortgaged properties as directed by the said decree. It appears that the plaint was subsequently amended and an allegation was added that the mortgage-debt had been satisfied. It was also alleged by them that the lady had no legal necessity and, therefore, could not bind the estate in any manner. It is noticeable that there is nothing said in the plaint about this lady having obtained Letters of Administration to the estate of her husband. It i...
Jitendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Asoke Nath Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal312,52Ind.Cas.4
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case a Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside or why such other order should not be passed as to this Court might seem fit.2. The order in question was an order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas to this effect: 'The defendant appears to have pawned some of the articles in suit (that is 6 chooris set with stones). He must make arrangements to produce the same in Court within a month.'3. The suit was one in which the plaintiff was claiming a right to redeem certain articles which he had pledged with the defendant.4. One of the defendant's defence was that the plaintiff had no right to redeem the articles, inasmuch as there had been a settlement between the parties and as a part of that settlement the plaintiff had abandoned his right to redeem and that consequently the articles in question were the property of the defendant.5. In that suit the plaintiff made an...
Girish Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. Girish Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal358,52Ind.Cas.501
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The only point for determination is whether the rate of rent is Rs. 40 as alleged by the plaintiff or Rs. 39 as alleged by the defendants. The defendants purchased a tenancy right at an auction sale held in execution of a decree against the previous tenants for arrears of rent. In that suit and in subsequent proceedings including a sale-certificate the rent of the holding is shown as Rs. 40. The learned Subordinate Judge has reversed the finding of the Munsif that the defendants were liable to pay rent at the rate shown in the sale-certificate on the ground that the jama of Rs. 4) was fraudulently inserted in the plaint, decree and the sale-certificate and that the defendants were not bound by the statement of the plaintiff himself when it was found to be fraudulent. No allegation of fraud was made by the defendants at the trial of the suit in the Court of first instance, nor was such allegation even made in the grounds of appea...
Raja Peary Mohan Mukherjee Vs. Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal817,52Ind.Cas.832
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for refund of certain costs of drainage, which have been realised from the plaintiff by the defendant in execution of a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act.2. It appears that certain drainage works were constructed in the District of Howrah. The defendant is the owner of the estate within which Mauza Bali is included. The Commissioners appointed under the Bengal Drainage Act apportioned the costs of the drainage works between the proprietors, the tenure-holders and under tenure-holders; and a sum of Rs 947 was assessed upon certain la he has lands in Bali as the proportionate amount of drainage costs. The Collector realised thin amount together with other sums payable in respect of the estate from the defendant. The defendant thereupon took steps to have the money realised from the plaintiff, under the certificate procedure. The certificate was filed and notice issued upon the plaintiff, but he did not contest his liability when the not...
Musammat Amirmai, Minor, Through Her Father and Next Friend Piar Moham ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.445
1. We think in this case that the learned Judge is in error in rejecting the application as he has done. The order which he has passed is an order passed under Order XXIII, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code. In our view, he ought to have proceeded under Rule 6 of the same Order. We accordingly set aside big order and send the case back to him for disposal in accordance with the above observations....
Sahadat Khan Vs. Taijuddi Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal1056
Walmsley and Shams-ul-Huda, JJ.1. The ground on which this Rule was issued was that the learned Magistrate had. acted without jurisdiction in passing the order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code without taking any evidence whatever. The explanation submitted by the Magistrate and the affidavit filed by the opposite party do not afford sufficient justification for the order. The Magistrate was doubtless invited to go to the spot. But that invitation did not mean that he was to dispose of the case without recording any evidence whatever. We think in this case that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction, and the order must be set aside. We make no order as to any further proceedings because that lies outside the scope of our functions....
Sahadat Khan Vs. Taijaddi Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.608
1. The ground on which this Rule was issued was that the learned Magistrate had acted without jurisdiction in passing the order under, Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, without taking any evidence whatever. The explanation submitted by the Magistrate and the affidavit filed by the opposite party do not afford sufficient justification for the order. The Magistrate was doubtless invited to go to the spot. But that invitation did not mean that he was to dispose of the case without recording any evidence whatever. We think in this case that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction (and the order must be set aside). We make no order as to any farther proceedings because that lies outside the scope of our functions....
Jnanada Sundari Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Jilapi Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.184
Newbould, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant brought this suit for recovery of possession of certain land on establishing her title thereto, Both the Courts below have granted the plaintiff a decree declaring her title but held that she was not entitled to khas possession. The finding is that the defendants, who are tenants of the plaintiff in respect of other lands, have been occupying the land in suit for more than 12 years claiming the right of tenancy thereto. The rulings cited in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, Ishan Chandra Mitter v. Raja Bamranjah Chakarbutty 2 C. L. J. 125., Raktoo Singh v. Sudhram Ahir 8 C. L. J. 557. and Protap Narain Mukerjee v. Biraj Dasi 20 Ind. Cas. 823; 19 C. L. J. 77., fully support the decisions of the Courts below that on the facts found by them the defendants must be held to have acquired a limited interest in the land by adverse possession.2. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs....
Gobindu Das Nath and ors. Vs. Sreemati Nitya Kali Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal840(2),51Ind.Cas.581
Walmsley, J.1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order requiring the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fee of Rs. 2,980 should not be set aside. It appears to me that the plaintiff has mistaken his remedy, or rather he has another remedy easily available to him and on that account we ought not to interfere under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. If he fails to deposit the sum which he has been ordered to pay, his suit will be dismissed and then he will have a right of appeal. That being so, I do not think we ought to interfere with the order passed by the Court below in our revisional jurisdiction. The Rule is, therefore, discharged with costs, three gold mohurs, to be divided. between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2. Let the record be sent down without delay.Shamsul Huda, J.3. I agree....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »