Kolkata Court February 1920 Judgments
Keramatulla Meah and anr. Vs. Keamatulla Meah, on His Death His Heires ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.710
1. This Rule is discharged. It relates to a matter which was outside the scope of the appeal preferred to this Court. The learned Vakil for the opposite party has, therefore, contended that the question raised of the amendment of the decree so as to bring it into conformity with the judgment of the Court below is one for that Court, and we are disposed to accept that view.2. Let the judgment and decree filed along with the application be returned to the petitioner's Vakil.3. Costs of this Rule will abide the result of any similar application which may be made in the Court below. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur....
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Mohan Roy and ors. Vs. Promotha Nath Ganguli and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal74,57Ind.Cas.874
1. These appeals rise out of proceedings in execution of decrees under the following circumstances: One Chandra Nath Ganguli and his brother mortgaged certain properties to one Giridhari Lal Roy in 1907 together with all 'rents, issues and profits' of the properties mortgaged. The mortgagee obtained a decree upon the mortgage in the original side of this Court, and in execution of the decree the properties hypothecated together with 'all arrears of rent' were Hold on the 29th July 1916 and were conveyed to the appellants in this case by the Registrar of this Court by a conveyance, dated the 15th September 1916.2. Before the purchase by the appellants, the mortgagors instituted rent suits against tenants holding james under the properties hypothecated, and obtained decrees on the 15th September 1916, i.e, on the very day the appellants obtained their conveyance from the Registrar. The appellants there upon applied for execution of the decrees. The applications were opposed by the Gangul...
Tag this Judgment!Mantajali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.477
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife and was sentenced to transportation for life. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Cachar assisted by two Assessors. The opinions of the Assessors were as follows. The first Assessor said: 'in my opinion the accused is not guilty. I give him the benefit of' doubt. It is probable that the accused committed the murder under insanity.' The second Assessor said: 'in my opinion the accused is not guilty. The accused committed the murder while he was insane.' It' appears to me that the opinions expressed! by the Assessors are not consistent, but I gather from them that the Assessors were really of opinion that the accused- person murdered his wife, but that he was insane at the time he committed the murder. The? learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that there is no doubt that the accused person did murder his wife. I think the: evidence on that point is over whelming and I...
Tag this Judgment!Mukbusor Rahaman Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Raj Lakhi Debya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal789,81Ind.Cas.744
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated 21st May, 1918, in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for the ejectment of the defendants from certain alluvial land. In the plaint as it originally stood there was an alternative prayer for the assessment of a fair and equitable rent in respect of the land But with the leave of the Court that prayer was subsequent withdrawn. The prayer for ejectment has been allowed and the appellants before us are the defendants.2. The plaintiffs are wards of the Court of Wards suing by their next friend, the General Manager, Court of Wards, Chittagong. The defendants were tenants of the plaintiffs under a patta dated the 26th March, 1906. The learned Subordinate Judge has held and in the result we shall agree with him--that the patta created a term of ten years on the expiry of which the plaintiffs had the option of evicting the defendants. The defendants contend that the patta entitles them to permanent ri...
Tag this Judgment!Jagamohini Dasi Vs. Shiba Gopal Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.610
Syed Shamsul Huda, J.1. I am of opinion that there is no merit in this appeal The facts appear to be shortly these : In the year 1894 the defendant appellant as plaintiff brought a suit for partition of two plots of land. The suit was wholly dismissed by the first Court, but, on appeal to this Court there was a decree for partition of plot No. 1 only and the suit for partition in respect of plot No. 2 was dismissed on the ground that a third person had an interest in that plot and the suit could not go on in his absence. It may be mentioned here that plot No. 1 of this suit has nothing to do with the land in respect of which partition is claimed in the present suit. The defendant appellant again as plaintiff brought a suit in the year 1903 for partition of a plot of land which covered an area of about 16 cottas. In this suit the Court of first instance passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff, but on appeal the suit was dismissed on the finding that only 8 cottas out of the 16 cottas...
Tag this Judgment!Matulal Dalmia Vs. Ramkissendas Madan Gopal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.568
1. We are of opinion that the question which arises in this matter should he decided in a regular suit. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Court below and dismiss the application. The costs of these proceedings will be costs in the suit, Mr. Banerjee for the appellant undertakes that the award will not be enforced for a month from this date....
Tag this Judgment!Chatturbhuj Chandunmull Vs. Basdeodas Daga
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal767,60Ind.Cas.909
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves, whereby he has refused to set aside an arbitration award. The events which led up to the award in question lie in a narrow compass and may be briefly recited.2. On the 4th August 1918, the plaintiffs-appellants bought from the defendant-respondent 30 bales of dhotis. The defendant himself had purchased the goods from an importer, Lakshmichand Jagannath, under a contract, dated the 29th July 1918. The terms of the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant were as follows: 'We sold the goods as were bought by us of Lakshmichand Jagannath Batta (allowance), chafage, all terms according to Bahar (importing) firms, godown due according to Bazar interest, only hire, according to Bhitor (Bazar)' On the 7th January 1919, the defendant instituted a suit in this Court in respect of 27 out of the 30 bales on the allegation that the plaintiffs had wrongfully refused to accept delivery. On the 11th June 1919, ...
Tag this Judgment!Fazarbi Bibi Vs. Moonsab Molla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.823
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the Rule has been supported upon three grounds: first, that the District Magistrate, when he made an order setting aside the order of dismissal which had been made by the Honorary Magistrate and directed the Rural Magistrate to proceed with the case after summoning the accused, ought not to have made such an order without giving notice to the petitioner.2. The learned Vakil who supported the Rule has admitted that the order made by the learned District Magistrate under Section 437 was not without jurisdiction by reason of the fact that notice had not been given; but he urged that as a matter of discretion the District Magistrate ought to have directed notice to the petitioner. In my judgment this matter has been settled in the Full Bench case of Hari Dass Sanyal v. Saritullah 15 C. 608 at p. 624 (F.B.) : 13 Ind. Jur. 55 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 988. The learned Chief Justice at the end of his judgment said: 'I think notice is not required by the law, but that...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Dassya and anr. Vs. Nibaran Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.240
1. In this case we make this Kale absolute. The Rule was granted on the second ground that the report of the Jurors was defective as only four out of the five Jurors were present at the time of the investigation and so the report was illegal and it ought not to have been relied on. It appears that the Magistrate acted upon the report. In our judgment he should not have done so. He should have appointed a fresh Jury and allowed the proceedings to go on with the fresh Jury.2. The Rule is made absolute. The Magistrate must appoint a fresh Jury....
Tag this Judgment!Santona Roy Vs. the Advocate General
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal389,62Ind.Cas.193
Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree in a suit on an Originating Summons which was taken out for the determination of questions arising under a deed of settlement. On the 14th March 1913, the deed was executed by one Suprasanna Ray who, along with his brother, Upendranarayan Ray, jointly held and possessed extensive estates in different districts of Bengal. Disputes had arisen between the two brothers and a suit for partition of the joint properties had resulted in a decree on the 2nd February 1911. Suprasanna, however, failed to obtain possession of the properties awarded to him, and instituted a second suit for recovery of his allotment or for a fresh partition of the entire estate. The result was that Suprasanna became heavily indebted, and the affairs of his estate were in a state of great mismanagement. In these circumstances, he executed the trust deed under consideration, with a view to pay off his debts, and to make arrangements for the proper man...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »