Kolkata Court August 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.
Jachmi Mondal and anr. Vs. Cheninissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.538
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from the appellate judgmeat of the Additional District Judge, and the matter depended upon the question whether the document to which reference is made required registration.2. Taking the statement of facts in the learned Judge's judgment, it appears that the plaintiffs and the defendants are respectively the representatives of Telam and Kinn, who admittedly were previously the sole proprietors of the suit Jama. The plaintiffs' case was that in 1838 Telam sued Kinn for contribution, he having defaulted in payment of rent. I understand from what the learned Vakil has said that Telam had paid rent to the landlord and Kinn had failed to pay his half share Consequently Telam sued Kinn for contribution. A compromise in this suit was effected and was incorporated in a decree under which Kinn gave up his rights in the land and Telam gave up his claim for rent. The learned Vakil has translated the material parts of the decree for u...
Bejoy Krishna Mookerjee Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn Jiu (idol) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.736
1. This is an appeal by the second defendant in a suit instituted under Section 14, Clause 1 of the Putni Regulation, 1819, for reversal of the putni sale. Putni Mahal Sajnore appertains to Touzi No. 11 of the Burdwan Collectorate and is situate partly within Burdwan district and partly within Birbhum district, in respect of this putni, Rs. 6,928 is annually payable as rent by the plaintiffs to the first defendant, the Maharaja of Burdwan. Default was made in payment of rent for the Bengali year 1321, with the result that proceedings under the Regulation were instituted by the Zemindar. The putni was sold by the Collector of Birbhum on the 15th May 1915, corresponding to 1st Jaist 1322. The appellant offered the highest bid and became the purchaser for Rs. 14,500. On the 8th May 1916, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for reversal of the sale. The Subordinate Judge has found, first, that the arrears due had been paid by the plaintiffs to the officer of the Zemindar at Burdwan o...
Mahatap Dasi Vs. Madhu Sudan Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1919
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.712
1. This appeal is directed against an order made by the District Judge of Murshidabad. The suit out of which this appeal arises was clearly of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes and the value of the subject-matter of the suit does not exceed 500 Rupees.2. A preliminary objection was, therefore, taken that no second appeal lies. That objection is well-founded. On the other hand, it is clear that the proceedings have been wholly misconceived and that the Court which tried the case in the first instance, by virtue of the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, had no jurisdiction to do so. We are entitled in the exercise of our discretion to treat this second appeal preferred to this Court as an application in revision. Treating the appeal as an application in revision, we set aside the orders made in both the Courts below and direct the Court of first instance now to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the Small Cause Court havin...
Maharaja Sir Rameswar Singh Bahadur Vs. Chuni Lal Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.839
1. This appeal is directed against an order made on the Receiver in a mortgage suit, who was appointed at the instance of the first mortgagee, now appellant before us. It appears that on the 4th May 1915 the first mortgagee, who held a mortgage over the entire property, instituted a suit to enforce his security against the mortgagor and the second mortgagee. Seven days liter, he applied for the appointment of a Receiver for the preservation of the property, for payment of arrears of rent due to the superior landlord, for the realization of rent and other incomes from the property and for the payment of the income to the plaintiff in reduction of his claim under the mortgage. The Subordinate Judge made a conditional order for the appointment of a Receiver on the same day. The order was made absolute on the 15th July 1915. Since then, the Receiver has been in possession and the order for payment of the profits in reduction of the dues on the first mortgage has been duly carried out. On t...
Nakul Chandra Barua and ors. Vs. Sasti Charan Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.390
John Woodroffe, J.1. I do not decide this appeal as a question of res judicata for it may be said that the auction-purchaser was not a party to the previous litigation nor did he claim under the ex proprietor within the meaning of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The purchaser is not bound by the act of the ex-proprietor, He gets the estate as it stood at the time of the Permanent Settlement. But the position here is this. The matter would have been res judicata if the question had arisen between the ex-proprietor and the tenants and in such case the latter would be bound to pay the rent previously adjudicated, and it is open to the purchaser, if he wishes, to accept the previous decision as binding on himself and the advantage of it. If he does so, it seems to me that the tenant cannot object. The purchaser is certainly not in any worse position than the ex-proprietor and may elect to take advantage of the decree obtained by the latter. If this were not so, then at each and ...
Baikuntha Nath Kundu and ors. Vs. Mohananda Borat Modak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.170
1. This is an appeal against a decree for mesne profits. The only question that has been argued before us is whether the plaintiff's claim should not have been dismissed on the ground that it is forced by limitation.2. In order to understand how this point arises it is necessary to state the dates and history of the litigation. On the 21st September 1908 the father of the present plaintiffs sued the defendants to recover possession of certain lands valued at Rs. 1,100 and claimed also mesne profits valued at Rs. 5 for the period before the suit from the date of the alleged dispossession, about two months prior to the suit, and also for the subsequent period until delivery of possession under the decree which the plaintiffs might obtain. On the 31st Marsh 1910 the plaintiffs obtained a decree for khas possession and mesne profits up to the delivery of possession. Against this decision the defendants appealed unsuccessfully both to the District Judge and to the High Court and their appea...
Gurudas Sen Vs. Gobinda Chandra Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.914
Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent based upon a Kabuliyat providing for payment of sash rent as well as Bhag paddy, and the question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the market value of the Bhag paddy or the value thereof as stated in the Kabuliyat.2. The Kabuliyat provides that the tenant would pay four rupees as rent and 91 aris of Bhag paddy, the paddy to be delivered at the house of the lesson in the month of Pous every year according to a certain measure and the cash rent within the course of the year. The Kabuliyat then says: 'if I fraudulently do not pay the aforesaid rent and share of paddy, you shall be competent to realize the said rent and Rs. 36 as price of the paddy together with interest and damages by bringing rent suit under the current Act or under any other Act which may some in future, to which I shall raise no objection. To this effect I execute this Kabuliyat for permanently enjoying the land in succession to sons and grandson...
The East India Cigarette Manufacturing Company, Limited Vs. Anaand Moh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.10
1. This is an appeal by one of the creditors of an insolvent, whose contention that he is in the position of a secured creditor has been overruled by the District Judge. The decision of this question defends upon the legal effect of an order made by this Court on the 7th March 1918. At that time a suit had been instituted by the appellant against his debtor. Two proceedings were before the Court, one an application for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Civil Procedure Code, the other an application by the debtor for leave to defend the suit instituted against him under Order XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code. On the 7th March an order was made by consent. The material part of the order was in these terms: 'Upon the defendant consenting to the interim attachment of his property and also consenting to the said property being considered as charged with the re payment of the amount of the plaintiff's claim in this suit, it is ordered that the defendant, within a fortnight from the...
The Official Assigns of the Calcutta High Court Vs. Bidyasundari Dasi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.700
1. This is an appeal by the fourth defendant in a suit for cancellation of a deed of gift. On the 20th February 1909 Raimohan Saha executed the deed in question in favour of his wife Bidyasundari Dasi. The deed covered immoveable properties valued at Rs. 14,000 by guess. On the 5th July 1911 Raimohan was adjudged an insolvent and his assets vested in the Official Assignee of this Court. On the 21st November 1911 Bidyasundari executed a deed of gift in favour of Raimohan. This deed covered all but six of the properties covered by the previous deed of gift executed by the husband in favour of the wife. On the 16th December 1911 Raimohan died. On the 22nd December 1913 Bidyasundari instituted the present suit for cancellation of the deed of gift executed by her. In the fourth paragraph of the plaint it is alleged that she executed the document under the impression that it was a power-of-attorney for the management of her properties. It is farther alleged that she did not execute the docum...
KalimuddIn Mollah Vs. SahibuddIn Molla Alias Sywali (Syedeya in Vakalu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.705
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. The question which has been referred to the Full Bench is whether the case of Abdul Hakim v. Latifunnessa Khatun 30 C. 582 : 7 C.W.N. 550 was rightly decided. The above named case is reported in 30 Calcutta 532 under the name of Abdul Hakim v. Latifunnessa Khatun 30 C. 582 : 7 C.W.N. 550.2. The question arose in a second appeal in a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce registration of a conveyance alleged to have been executed In his favour by the defendants.3. The document in question was presented for registration in the Sub-Registry office at Sealdah. As the defendants did not appear, registration was refused by the Sub Registrar; against this order the plaintiff made an application to the Registrar on the 26th of January 1914 : his application was rejected.4. Thereupon on the 21st of February following, the plaintiff brought his suit in the Court of the Munsif at Alipore. On the 19th of June 1914, the Sealdah Sub-Registry office not being within the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »