Kolkata Court June 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.
Apurba Krishna Roy and ors. Vs. Syama Charan Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.952
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that an entry in the Record of Rights, stating that the plaintiff held the land in dispute under the defendant and that the land was liable to assessment of rent, is erroneous, the lands being nishkar (rent-free).2. The Court of first instance held that the order of the Settlement Officer under Section 165 of the Bengal Tenancy Act operated as res judicata. That decision has been set aside on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, who remanded the suit for trial on the merits, As against that decision, the present appeal has been preferred by the defendants.3. As stated above, in the Record of Rights the land was entered as Mal land liable to assessment of rent. After final publication of the Record of Rights, the landlords defendants in the present ease applied for settlement of fair and equitable rent under the provisions of Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The present plaintiff thereupon raised the objection that the land...
Golapjan Bibi Wife of Sheikh Ujir Mamud Alias Jamir Mamud Vs. Sheikh D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.394
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. I think in this case the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court is correct, although all the reasons that he has given may not appear to be sound. The question turns on this : did the landlord acquire a right of re-entry to a non transferable occupancy holding? The landlord's right of re-entry is supposed to have arisen by reason of Abdul, the tenant, having executed two documents, one in favour of his wife and the other in favour of his daughter. The facts found were these: That notwithstanding these two documents, Abdul remained on the holding and resided at the house erected on a portion thereof down to the date of his death. He died on this holding. At that time his wife and daughter were living with him and, therefore, immediately on Abdul's death, his wife and daughter became entitled to the property as his heirs and the mere fact that he purported to give them two invalid documents during his lifetime did not alter the chara...
Haris Chandra Nandi and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representativ ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.785
Fletcher, J1. This appeal is preferred by the first defendant against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergannas, dated the 14th February 1917, modifying the decision of the Munsif at Biruipur. The plaintiffs brought the suit for recovery of certain money in terms of a mortgage deed and also for interest. That is how they described it in the plaint. The facts are these: The plaintiffs got the mortgage in 1902. The date for re-payment of the mortgage money was the 17th October ly08. The present suit was not instituted till the 5th November 1914 The mortgaged property consisted of three plots of a non transferable occupancy holding, and the defendant No. 1, in breach of the duty that he owed to - his mortgagees, purported to transfer two of the mortgaged plots which entitled the landlord to reenter and to forfeit two plots of the mortgaged property. In these circumstances, the learned Subordinate Judge points out that, under the provisions of the Transfer of Proper...
Dudali Uayal and anr. Vs. Belo Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.806
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of the 24-Pergannahs dated the 7th February 1917, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Diamond Harbour. The plaintiffs brought the suit to enforce a mortgage, the defendants being the mortgagors and persons who were, or were supposed to be, the owners of the equity of redemption. The defendant No. 4, who apparently according to the plaintiffs' case was added or made a defend-ant on the ground that he was a purchaser of the equity of redemption, turned out during the course of the proceedings to be the landlord and he set up the case that the mortgagors had no interest which they could mortgage to the plaintiffs. The learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court agreeing with the Court -of first instance held that, although the mortgage was proved and the consideration had been duly paid the plaintiffs were not entitled to enforce the security on the ground t...
Mohendra Nath Chakraburtty Vs. Ramtaran Bandapadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.96
Walmsley, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken in this case that no appeal lies. The order complained of is an order remanding the case to the first Court. Apparently the order is not made under Order XLI, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code, and it is only against an order of remand under that rule that an appeal is allowed by the Code. I think the objection must be sustained and the appeal dismissed with costs, hearing fee one gold mohur.2. The cross-objection is not pressed and is dismissed with costs. Let the record be sent down at once to the lower Appellate Court.Shamsul Huda, J.3. I agree....
Umesh Chandra Dutt and ors. Vs. Bibhuti Bhushan Pal Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.334
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendants judgment-debtors against the decision of the learned District Judge of Nadia, dated the 8th December 1916, modifying the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The fasts out of which the present appeal arises are as follows : The plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of possession of certain land and for mesne profits. They succeeded in that suit. The case then went before a Commissioner for ascertainment of mesne profits and demarcation of the land of which possession was to be recovered. Before the Commissioner, the parties arrived at an agreement, and under the terms of that agreement, the matters were adjusted between the parties and the question of costs was dealt with in this way in clauses 3 and 4; 'Regarding the costs of this execution case, the Court costs incurred in taking possession and in ascertaining the amount of wasilat, which will be decided by the Court to be legally due to the decree-holders ...
Sen and Pundit Vs. E.S. Oakes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.560
Sanderson, C. J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from the judgment of Greaves, J., whereby he granted an injunction against the defendants restraining them and their servants and agents from passing off or attempting to pass off or in any manner representing any bicycles not imported by the plaintiff as and for bicycles imported by the plaintiff and as and for Warrior Bicycles and in particular from selling, offering for sale or causing, procuring or enabling to be sold any bicycles not imported by the plaintiff with or bearing the stamp or device of Warrior in the plaint in this suit mentioned or any other device resembling or colourably resembling the plaintiff's said stamp or device or under the name of Warrior Cycles and from fixing to any bicycles or otherwise employing or using in connection therewith any such stamp or device or any such name or any equivalent thereof in any manner whatsoever.' And it was further ordered that the defendants should furnish to the plaintiff o...
Jogesh Chandra Deb Vs. Jagat Chandra Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal522,52Ind.Cas.696
Asutosh Chaudhuri, J.1. The application for review was rejected on the ground that decrees made upon awards do not come within the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 1. The matter was referred to arbitration by the Court and a decree followed upon the awards It was contended on behalf of the applicant that be bad discovered the mistake he complains of in execution of the decree, namely, that it had embodied an evident mistake in the award, and he then applied to have the award corrected under the provisions of the Code, namely, under Rule 12, Schedule II. The learned Munsif held that such an application was not maintainable. It was held in the case of Buta v. Guni Das 111 P.R. 1881 by Rattigan, J., that a review of a decree based upon an award is admissible. That was no doubt a case under Sections 522 and 623 of Act X of 1877. The present provisions of the Code do not affect that decision in my opinion, and I think it is a matter which the learned Munsif ought to go into. It will be open ...
Krishna Prasad Maitra, Shebait of Annopurna Thakurani Vs. Dhirendra Na ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.1
1. This is an appeal by the decree holder against an order refusing execution of his decree on the ground that his application is barred by limitation. The following are the dates necessary to understand the points which have been urged at the hearing of the appeal. The decree was passed on the 10th July 1908 and an application for execution was made in 1911 with which we are not concerned Then a second application was made in 1914. On the 18th January 1915, a notice was filed for service on the judgment-debtor, under Rule 22 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 22nd of January 1915 that notice was signed by the Sheristadar of the third Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipur. As the judgment debtor resided in the town of Calcutta that notice was forwarded to the clerk of the Small Cause Court of Calcutta on the 22nd January and was received by him on the 23rd January 1915 for service. On the 25th January 1915, the clerk of the Small Cause Court ordered the notice of th...
Narendra Nath Kuti and ors. Vs. Satyadhan Ghosal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.396
1. One of the defendants-appellants died more than six months ago, and no application was made for the substitution of his legal representatives. That, being so, the appeal abates so far as that appellant is concerned.2. The question, however, is whether the whole appeal must fail by reason of the abatement of the appeal with respect to one of the appellants.3. The appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent instituted by some co-sharer landlords against the tenants. The tenant defendants claimed abatement of rent. That was allowed by the Court of first instance. On appeal by the landlords, the lower Appellate Court reversed that decree and held that the defendants were not entitled to an abatement of rent as all the landlords were not parties to the suit. Against that decision of the lower Appellate Court, the present appeal was preferred.4. As stated above, one of the tenants (who were the appellants) died and his legal representatives were not substituted. That being so, the que...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »