Kolkata Court January 1920 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.
Haricharan Mandal Vs. Bighore GaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.127
Richardson, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant to this Court, is said to be a raiyat and the defendants are said to be his under raiyats. The suit was brought for ejectment of the defendants after service of notice to quit under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Munsif gave the plaintiff, a decree. The learned District Judge has dismissed the suit on the sole ground that the notice to quit served on defendant No. 1 does not affect the other defendants and that there has been no proper or any service of notice on them. The defendants are four in number. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the nephews of the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 4 is his brother's widow.2. It is not disputed that the defendants are tenants-in-common of the holding in question. Under the rules framed by the Government notices under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act have to be served in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure for the service of a summons. It is said that the notices to quit...
Alior Rahaman Pandit and Vs. Abdul Sobhan Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.356
Teunon, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two applications for restitution made under the provisions of Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. It appears that one Ayaraja Howladar brought a suit for partition in which he made 64 persons parties defendants. It is not necessary to trace the history of this suit through all its stages or to consider whether at some of these stages some of the parties defendants were or were not improperly omitted. It is sufficient to say that on the 29th August 1902 the final decree for partition was made, that on appeal to the District Judge the plaintiff's suit was dismissed and that on fur her appeal to this Court the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw his suit. Meanwhile in proceedings of 1913 in execution of the final decree, which by the order of this Court fell to the ground, in execution taken out at the instance certainly of the plaintiff, possibly of certain of the defendants as well, the possession of the allotments made in their favour was take...
Kangal Chandra Pal and anr. Vs. Gopinath Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1920
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.104
1. This appeal is preferred by defendants Nos. 6 and 7 in a suit for contribution. The plaintiffs in the suit held a two-anna odd share in a dar-patni tenure. The patnidar sued for arrears of rent due in respest of the years 1313 to 1316. The defendants in that suit were the defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in the present suit. The patnidar obtained a decree and in execution the dar-patni was gold in September 1911 and purchased by the present defendant No 4. On the 25th October 1911 the plaintiffs deposed in Court the amount of the decree, namely, Rs. 4,180, together with the statutory compensation of five per sent, on the purchase money due to the auction-purchaser, Rs. 285, and in consequence the sale was Bet aside. The plaintiffs allege that in this connection they incurred costs amounting to Rs. 2115 10. The suit was brought for contribution from the co sharers in the dar-patni in respect of the three sums I have stated.2. In the course of the suit, defendants Nos. 1 and 4 same to terms...
Srimati Rani Hemanta Kumari Devi and ors. Vs. Maharaja Jagadindra Nath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.614
1. The question on this appeal is whether the appellants, the plaintiffs in the suit, are entitled as Zemindars of Pukhuria to malikana in respect of certain temporarily settled estates held by the defendant respondent as accretions to his taluk known as Palasuti Digar.2. The Taluk was carved out of the Zemindari before the Permanent Settlement and the relation of the one to the other has been the subject of long litigation extending over a century and only recently terminated by a decision of the Privy Council adverse to the plaintiffs: Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Jagadindra Nath Roy 51 Ind. Cas. 148 : 23 C.W.N. 149 (P.C.). In a previous case which also went before the Privy Council the plaintiffs had sued unsuccessfully for the enhancement of the rent of the taluk [Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Jagadindra Nath Roy 22 C. 214 (P.C.) : 21 I.A. 131 : 6 Sar. P.C.J. 473 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 144]. It is now finally settled that the taluk is independent of the Zemindari and the separation effected by t...
T.R. Pratt Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.473
Asutosh Chudhuri, J.1. We do not think that we can uphold the order which has been passed by the learned Magistrate in this matter, The warrant which has been actually issued refers to an enquiry which is 'now being made.'2. It is conceded that no enquiry is being made by the Magistrate and the enquiry which is therein mentioned probably refers to the investigation which is being made by the officer appointed by the Government to enquire into the dealings with the Munitions Board. The warrant does not refer to an enquiry 'about to be made,' What was prayed for was a general search warrant in respect of books and documents mentioned in the petition, namely, for the years 1917, 1918 and 1919. The warrant as issued is a general warrant referring to all accounts, ledgers, stock-books, etc, correspondence and documents which may have a bearing on the transactions with the Munitions Board. It is said that the order was made under Section 96, Clause 3, of the Criminal Procedure Code, that is ...
Sreemutty Radhashyam Dasya, Widow of Golak NaraIn Poddar, and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.664
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional Judge of Dacca, dated the 26th June 1919,2. On the 13th March 1912 Probate was granted of the Will of Sagar Chandra De, who died on the 1st Aswin 1318 (18th September 1211), leaving him surviving his mother, his childless widow, then a minor, a minor brother and one or two married sisters.3. The proceedings were not contested; the Wilt was proved in common form and Probate was granted to the mother as executrix.4. The decree appealed from revokes the Probate and directs the executrix, the appellant before us, to prove the Will in solemn form.5. The petition for revocation was presented by the widow on the 18th November 1918, more than six years after the grant of Probate. The petition was signed on the widow's behalf by her father, Srish Chandra Dhar. The widow was 16 or 17 years old when her husband died and came of age in 1912 or 1913.6. The Additional District Judge has found that, after her husband's death, the wid...
Madhabi Sundari Dasya and ors. Vs. Syama Charan Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.748
1. The question involved in these oases is whether the landlord is entitled to additional rent for additional area.2. The plaintiff proved that there was measurement in 1276 and adduced evidence to show what the standard of measurement was in that year. The learned Special Judge, however, has disbelieved that evidence.3. It is contended before as that the present standard of measurement ought to have been presumed to be the standard in use in 1276, and reliance is placed upon the judgment of Mookerjee, J., in the case of Ishan Chandra Mitter v. Raja Ramranjan Chakarbutty 2 C.L.J. 125 at p. 132, It is unnecessary to consider the effect of the passage in the judgment of Mookerjee, J., at page 132 in that case, because in the present case the learned Special Judge finds that the standard of measurement set up on behalf of the plaintiff would be inconsistent with the kabuliyat upon which the suit is based; and he points out several circumstances showing that the standard of measurement set...
Jugmohan Pradhani Vs. Indra Chandra Choraria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.95
1. The appellant was no doubt, a secured creditor and his rights could not be affected by the composition unless he was a consenting party to it. The only question, therefore, before this Court is, whether he was a consenting party.2. It has been pressed before us that the fact that the question of the satisfaction of the decree was being fought out between the judgment debtors and the decree-holder for several years goes to show that the latter was not a consenting party to the composition. But the adjustment of the decree, which was the subject-matter of decision in the previous proceedings which came up to this Court, was an agreement set up by the judgment debtor under with the decree is said to have been adjusted and it was quite different from the com-position which we have to consider in this proceeding.3. The learned Subordinate Judge points out that one of the Pleaders who withdrew the objections to the composition proposed, provided payment was made in cash, included the Plea...
Girindra Chandra Sen Vs. Mahesh Ram Deb and on His Death His Heirs and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.170
1. The question involved in this appeal is--what was the interest which the sons of Golak, the testator, got under his Will.2. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that an absolute interest was given to them under the will.3. It appears that although there is some difference in the expressions used with reference to the right granted to the sons and to the grandson after the death of the sons, respectively, both the sons and the grandson were given full maliki right. It is true that restrictions were imposed on the power of alienation, but these restrictions appear not only in the case of the sons, but also in the case of the grandson. We do not think, upon a construction of the Will as a whole, that the testator intended to give a life-estate to the sons and confer an absolute estate on the grandson, as contended for on behalf of the appellant. It seems to us that the intention of the testator was to grant an absolute estate to the sons and the grandson, though an attempt appe...
Sadak Ali Vs. Safar Ali Sufani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.984
Teunon, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand made by the first Appellate Court. The suit out of which the appeal arises is one for recovery of possession on establishment of the plaintiff's title. The plaintiff's case was that of the lands in suit he had obtained a lease from the superior landlord in the year 1250 Maghi, the superior landlord being one Abdul Ali Malum. The case for the defense was, first, that the lands in dispute were not covered by the lease Obtained by the plaintiff in 1250, and secondly that even if so included, that they have been previously leased out by the landlord to one Noor Ali and that, therefore, at the date of the plaintiff's lease the landlord had no right to lease out the lands in question. The first Court directed a local investigation, and after considering the report of the Commissioner thus appointed and the oral evidence adduced by the parties, name to the conclusion that the lands in suit were not included in the plaintiff's lease and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »