Kolkata Court January 1920 Judgments
Jagannath Agarwalla Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.93
Asutosh Chaudhuri, J.1. Search warrants were issued on the 21st December 1919 in this and other cases by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 96, Criminal Procedure Code, on the application of Mr. Armstrong, an officer deputed by the Government of India to investigate into some alleged fraudulent transactions brought to its notice by the Comptroller, Munitions Board, Bengal Circle. We have dealt with the warrant which was issued against one Mr. Pratt. We found that it was not justified under Section 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The same ruling would have covered this case, had it not been for the explanation which the Magistrate has now submitted which differs on material points from the explanation then submitted. The learned Magistrate now says that he acted upon the petition coupled with the statements made by Mr. Armstrong, which he says he had every reason to believe and act upon. No reference to any statement made by Mr. Armstrong was made or even alluded to when h...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Kumar Pal Chowdhuri Vs. Mukshoda Charan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.1001
1. The plaintiff-respondent sought to recover possession of the disputed land as putnidar under the patni patta, dated the 23rd May 1913, granted by the then proprietor of the estate. It appears that one Prokash Saha purchased the estate at a sale for arrears of revenue in 1909 and sold the same to one Diwanat Ram and others. The plaintiff obtained the patni from the latter, and brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, to recover possession of the disputed land from the defendants who were in adverse possession thereof for about 25 years, alleging that Prokash Saha had purchased the estate free from incumbrances. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance on the ground that Prokash Saha was benamdar for the outgoing proprietors, and that the plaintiff's patni was also a benami transaction. On appeal the lower Appellate Court, not dissenting from the finding of the Court of first instance on the first point, was of opinion that the defend ants' incumbrance had been a...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Monindra Chandra Nandy Bahadur Vs. Chandy Charan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.211
Austosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves determining that this Court in the exercise in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction is competent to entertain the suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The suit was instituted on the 8th January 1915 for recovery of damages for breach of a contract alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on the 19th December 1912. The case for the plaintiff is that the contract was wrongfully broken by the defend ant on the 26th January 1913 and that be has thereby suffered loss to the extent of RS. 5,24,300. The defendant does not reside within the jurisdiction of this Court and it is not disputed that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit, unless it is established that the defendant carries on business within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of the Court within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sheikh Vs. Mahamad Ayab
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.551
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule which was obtained by the defendant in a suit which was brought in the Small Cause Court of the Subordinate Judge at Berhampore.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for Rs. 125 and at the first hearing the suit was dismissed, and I assume it was dismissed with costs. Thereafter, the plaintiff made an application for review of judgment. The ground of the application was that he had discovered new evidence which he could not have discovered before by the exercise of due diligence. The learned Judge entertained the application for review, and eventually gave judgment for the plaintiff.3. This Rule had been supported on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887, It is clear that under the provisions of Article 161 of the Limitation Act of 1908, the period within which an application for review of a judgment given by a Provincial Court of Small Causes must be m...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairab Chandra Bose Vs. Anath Nath De and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.686
1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon an equitable mortgage. It appears that the defendant No. 1 had mortgaged certain properties to the plaintiff under two successive mortgage-bonds, and delivered to him the title deeds of the property. Subsequently on the 25th February 1914 she took a loan of Rs. 1,500 upon the security of the title deeds, executing a promissory note for the said amount. A letter was written by her on the same date to the plaintiff which ran as follows: 'Dear Sir, For re-payment of the sum of Rs. 1,500 with interest I have borrowed from you on a pro-note of date, I hereby put on record that the title-deeds re my premises No. 1, Garpar Road, already deposited with you shall be held as collateral security.'2. The question for consideration was whether the transaction constituted a valid equitable mortgage. The Court of first instance held that the letter not being registered was inadmissible in evidence and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge he...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Nath Roy Choudhury Vs. Kamakhya Charan Chattopadhyaya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.500
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal arises out of a rent suit. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the plaintiffs that the appeal is barred by Section 153, Bengal Tenancy Act. I think that this contention is right; but I cannot state my reasons for so thinking without mentioning the facts necessary for the point raised by the appellant, So I do not rest my decision only upon Section 153, The facts are as follows: There is an estate No. 3197 of the Backergunge Collectorate. The proprietors thereof sold a piece of land measuring 3 Kanis and odd comprised in the estate to the predecessor of the defendant in March 1857. Some years later they granted a putni of the estate to the plaintiffs' predecessors. By the kobala in favour of the defendant's predecessor it was agreed that the defendant should pay Rs. 3 and odd annually as Sadar Jama to the proprietor; and it appears that the defendant paid this sum annually to the proprietor and afterwards to the putnidar. It is the putnidar who now s...
Tag this Judgment!Sashibala Dasi, Wife of Radan Chandra Rakshit and ors. Vs. Kamiksha Na ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.716
Beachcroft, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Howrah, directing that an award made by arbitrators should be enforced as a compromise under Order XXIII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit was one for partition. It was instituted on the 11th March 1916. The plaintiffs, three in number, are the daughters of one Uday Chand Dutta. Another daughter of Uday Chand, a childless widow at the time of her father's death, is defendant No. 4. Defendants Nos. 5 to 8 are sons of another daughter of Uday Chand. The defendants Nos. I to 3 are sons of one Gagan Chandra Dutta, who was the brother of Uday Chand, and defendant No. 9 is the widow of Gagan Chandra. On the 29th May 1916 the three plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 executed an agreement to refer the matter in dispute between them to arbitration and the Court allowed time for the purpose. The reference to arbitration was made without the intervention of the Court. On the 20th February an a...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Pratt Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.97
1. We think that this Rule ought to be discharged. There were materials before the Magistrate upon which an order under Section 94 could properly be made, and was properly made. A point was made by Mr. Pratt that he had authorised Mr. McLean to take over the books. He says that almost simultaneously he gave a direction to his officer Mr. Quayle to remove the books after Mr. McLean had taken them over. It is difficult to understand why this farther order was made. It had the effect of misleading the Court. The Court made an enquiry at the time as to who was the person to give a receipt and take the books and Mr. McLean was one of the persons named. Immediately thereafter though authority was given to Mr. McLean to remove those books and to sign a receipt for them, Mr. Pratt by an order which was not made known to the Court authorised another person to take over the books from Mr. McLean. The order under Section 94 was accordingly made on Mr. McLean who was going to fake delivery of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Pyari (Pyar in Vokalatnama) Deyee Debi and ors. Vs. Sheikh Sak ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.716
1. In this ease the plaintiff, respondent sued for a declaration that the land in suit, about 12 cottas in area, was Pirottar land of which the plaintiff was the Mutwalli. The defendants denied that the land was Pirottar and that the plaintiff was the Mutwalli. They claimed the land as a part of their Zemindari.2. The Court of first instance gave a decree to the plaintiff in respect of only 3 cottas of land on which there is the shrine of the Pir. The defendants did not object to that decree, but the plaintiff appealed to the lower Appellate Court and that Court came to the conclusion that the Muhammadans were in possession of the land for over 12 years as belonging to their Pir and that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree.3. The judgment did not disclose that there was any right of the Pir other than that based upon adverse possession for 12 years.4. It was contended before this Court on behalf of the defendants appellants that the finding of the lower Appellate Court w...
Tag this Judgment!Monmohan Ghose Vs. NaraIn Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.709
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant as landlord under Section 158, Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts are all stated in the judgments of the lower Courts.2. Two points are raised in this appeal. The first is that there ought to have been an enquiry regarding the other parcels of land which the defendant admitted that he possessed, although ho said that he held them under a debutter title. The second point is that the Courts below should have come to a finding as to whether the tenant was entitled or not to the benefit of the presumption under Section 50, Bengal Tenancy Act.3. As regards the first point, the Courts below held that the landlord was so negligent that he was not entitled to have any more land measured. It appears that a commission was issued to the Revenue Officer in September 1917. That officer went to the village on the 5th December. The Amin visited the village in January and the Revenue Officer went again in February to check the Am...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »