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.
Uttam Chandra Daw Vs. Raj Krishna Dalal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.157
Sanderson, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is 'where a mortghgee has, in contravention of Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, attached the mortgaged property and brought it to sale and purchased it himself, can the mortgagor or his transferee without first getting the sale set aside successfully maintain a suit for redemption of the property.'2. The plaintiff sued for redemption of what was described by the learned District Judge as a usufructuary mortgage bond in respect of 18 bighas of land executed in favour of Uttam Chandra Daw (defendant No. 1) by Sayemi Bibi, Takim Gazi and Tabrez (or Tamraj) Sardar on 6th April 1891. Possession was given to defendant U.C. Daw under the bond, but on the same day the mortgagors executed a kabuliyat in favour of the above-mentioned defendant, whereby they attorned as tenants to him. Subsequently the mortgagors, as tenants, made default in payment of rent and the above mentioned defendant sued Sayema, Takim and Tabrez and obta...
Suryya Kanta Bhattacharyya Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.674
Asutosh Chaudhari, J.1. The appellant, a Station Master, was tried jointly with another, a Goods Clerk, before the Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts and a Jury under Section 408, Indian Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust as railway servants. The Goods Clerk was also charged under Section 477A for fabrication of certain entries and the appellant with abetment thereof.2. The Jury unanimously found the Goods Clerk not guilty of both charges; the majority, however (3 to 2) found the appellant guilty under Section 468. The Judge agreeing with the majority has sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. Hence this appeal. It was heard by the Criminal Bench, but, owing to a difference of opinion, it has come before me under Section 429, Criminal Procedure Code.3. The facts are shortly these. One Golap Rai (P.W. No. 3), the Gomasta of a Marwari firm, on the 18th December 191, loaded 135 bags of rise weighing about 254 maunds in a wagon at the Dumduma Station to be sen...
Umesh Chandra Ghosh Vs. Srimati Nistarini Besu Widow of Sarat Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.562
Ernest Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dacca, who held that the suit which was brought by the plaintiff under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act for the registration of a Muktipatra was not maintainable. The facts stated to us to-day by the learned Vakil are as follows:The deed is alleged to have been executed on the 3Cth of January 1914; it was tendered to the Sub Registrar for registration on the 29th of June 1914 which was more than four months from the date of execution, the period prescribed by Section 23 of the Registration Act. But it was alleged that the document had been kept in the possession of the Criminal Court for the best part of a month, and for that and other reasons the present plaintiff alleged that the delay ought not to be allowed to prevent the registration. On the 1st of July the Sub-Registrar sent the matter to the Registrar. More than two months and a half elapsed, and then on ...
Kasem Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.994
Syed Shams-Ul-Huda, J.1. Thirty four persona were placed on their trial on a charge under Section 401 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial was held by a Magistrate specially authorized under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial lasted a long time, in the course of which 314 witnesses were examined. The Magistrate acquitted two of the accused and convicted the rest. Three of them were sentenced to more than four years' rigorous e imprisonment, and they have appealed to this Court under Section 408(b) of the Code.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: Proceedings under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code were taken in the year 1917 against Mason Haji and others including two of the appellants, Munshi and Jaban, Mason Haji made a confession which led to an enquiry, and the Local Government appointed M. Mufizur Rahman to verify the confession made by Mason. M. Mufizur Rahman then recorded the confession of Mason at a greater length than it was taken down ...
Dinesh Chandra Banerjee and ors. Vs. Romesh Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.316
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a second appeal by the first defendante, who are the sons of one Raj Chandra Bhakta. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs, Romesh Chandra Das, and Jogesh Chandra Das, sons of the late. Radhaballay Dass, against the first defendants, the Bhaktas, and against the other defendants, who may be called defendants Nos. 2 to 6.2. The plaintiffs are the proprietors of an Estate No. 6308 and defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are the proprietors of the adjoining Estate No. 6307 and the suit was brought by the plaintiffs to establish their right to about 34 bighas and also to recover possession, and to eject the first defendants from the lands.3. It has been held by the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiffs have established their title to a portion of the 34 bighas, and that such portion formed part of the plaintiff's Estate No. 6308 and that finding of the lower Appellate Court is not contested. But it is alleged on behalf of the first defendants that the plaintiffs ...
Kali Kant Chakerbutty Vs. Rajani Kanta Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.308
1. The question involved in this appeal turns upon the construction of the Will of one Kali Kinkar Chakravarty.2. Kali Kinkar died leaving his mother, Tori, and his widow, Karatara. By his Will he gave certain properties to the mother and the widow absolutely. The 4th paragraph of the Will provides as follows: 'The tank and the homestead in Betagi which belongs to me will remain in half and half share in possession of my mother Sreemoti Tori and my wife Karatara but they will not have the power to sell the properties. On the death of both, my heirs will get it. If in the meantime they go elsewhere by leaving my homestead, they will not get this property.'3. It appears that the mother sold the property and left the house, the widow then ratified the sale and also left the house. That was some time in 1867, the exact year being unnecessary for the purpose of the present case. The mother died more than 12 years before the suit but the widow died in 1908, i.e., within 12 years of the suit....
Promotho Nath Roy Vs. W.A. Lee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1919
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.216
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application by the defendant for a certificate that the decree of this Court, from which the appeal is sought to the Privy Council, involves a claim of Rs. 10,000 and that the appeal involves some substantial question of law.2. A point was taken on behalf of the plaintiff that the decree of the High Court was not one 'passed on appeal' within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. The order of Mr. Justice Greaves, against which the appeal was directed, was made on the 26tb July 1918.4. On the 30th August 1918, the last day of the sitting of the Court, at about 5 p.m., after the Court of Appeal had risen, an application was made to Mr. Justice Chaudhuri sitting on the Original Side for leave to file the memorandum of appeal, without a copy of the order against which the defendant desired to appeal.5. The learned Judge granted leave to the defendant to file the memorandum of appeal, subject to any objection which migh...
Mahadeo Prosad Agarwala Vs. NaraIn Chandra Chakrabarti and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.121
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to enforce specific performance of a contract for sale of land and machineries described in the schedule to the plaint. On the 25th June 1917 the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to convey to him the properties in suit for a sum of Rs. 6,000. Rs. 51 was paid as earnest money and the residue was agreed to be paid at the time of the execution of the conveyance. The vendor undertook to deliver to the attorney for the purchaser within one week from the date of the agreement all documents of title in his possession. The agreement next provided as follows: (a) 'the purchase shall be completed within three weeks from the date hereof;' (b) 'should the purchaser fail to complete the contract within the time and in manner hereinbefore mentioned, notwithstanding that a good title had been made out, the vendor would be at liberty to cancel the agreement, forfeit the earnest money and claim either damages or specific perfor...
Bhutnath Nag and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representatives Rame ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.368
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the decree obtained by the defendant No. 1 in a contribution suit was void and inoperative as against the plaintiffs and that the sale held in execution of that decree was not binding upon them.2. In that suit the present plaintiffs were desorbed as minors represented by their certificated guardian, the defendant No. 2. It appears, however, that when the defendant No. 2 applied for certificate of guardianship, the Court ordered that he might be appointed guardian provided he furnished security to the extent of Rs. 2,000. This security was never furnished by defendant No. 2, nor did he ever take out a certificate of guardianship. The defendant No. 2 was not appointed a guardian ad litem. The question is whether under these circumstances the plaintiffs can be said to have been properly represented by defendant No. 2 in that suit J The Courts below have concurred in answering the question in the negative and the defendant No. 1 ha...
Abdul Rahaman Vs. Mohendra Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.633
1. We think that the order of remand made by the District Judge must be set aside.2. The lower Appellate Court directed the Court of first instance to add Sarada Sundari Dasi, the real owner, to be made a party to the suit because the defendant No. 2, who contested the suit on the mortgage, was merely a benamdar.3. Having regard to the recent decision of the Privy Council, it appears that a proceeding against a benamdar in its ultimate result is fully binding on the beneficial owner. That being so. we do not see that it is necessary to add Sarada Sundari as a party to the suit which, moreover, would be barred as against her.4. Some arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellant that the defendant No. 2 is not a benamdar now. Bat the Court of first instance found that 'the defendant No. 2 lived in the same house as Sarada and served her. He took kabuliyats in his own name from the tenants in this property, as he himself admits. The tenants also used to pay rents in the house where h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›