Kolkata Court February 1920 Judgments
Srimati Anilbala Chowdhurani Vs. Dhirendra Nath Saha Choudhury and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.768
Teunon, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, to the District Judge of Pabna.2. The jurisdiction of the High Court (i.e., Sections 37 and 62 of the Act) excludes the jurisdiction of the District Court and the question in the appeal, as in the Court of first instance, is whether the person alleged to be a lunatic, one Dhirendra Nath Shaha Chowdhuri, is a person subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta and, therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court of Pabna.3. The ancestors of the respondent Dhirendra were residents of Parsadanga in the District of Pabna. There was a separation in 1900 and at the partition which then took place, Gobinda, the grandfather of the respondents, Dhirendra and his brother Surendra, took no share in the family dwelling house, though he reserved for himself what is described as an Athohala of three rooms (a record room and two office rooms) for the purposes of an offi...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Dutta and ors. Vs. Mohendra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.706
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's right to access of light and air through the northern windows of the plaintiff's rooms over the defendants' land. The right, it is found, has been enjoyed for more than 25 years. The defendants' house is to the north of the plaintiff's and there is an intervening space. of 1 feet 10 1/2 inches. The defendants, it appears, had a compound wall, 8 feet 5 inches in height, immediately to the north of this intervening space. The top of the northern windows of the plaintiff's rooms was 7 feet 6 inches from the ground level, so that the compound wall was 6 1/2 inches higher than the top of the plaintiff's windows. The height of the wall was raised to 18 feet and thereupon this suit was instituted by the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance. On appeal the. learned Subordinate Judge held that the raising of the wall did not substantially diminish the access of light and air to the western room, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Manaranjan Sadhukhan Vs. Birendranath Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.847
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale and is directed against an order, by which, on the 25th November 1919, the Judge of the trial Court refused the plaintiff's prayer for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from selling the property in question during the pendency of the suit.The defendants are four widows, three minors and two comparatively young men. They are co-sharers in the property and the contract in question was entered into with them on the 28th of February 1919. In this contract the mother of the 3 minors, one of the four widows, purported to act on behalf of her minor sons. She had not then been appointed guardian of the person or property of her minor children under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act and one of the terms of the contract, therefore, was that she should apply to the District Judge to be so appointed, should next apply for his permission to sell the shares of the minors, and within one mo...
Tag this Judgment!Foijuddi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.922
Lancelot Sinderson, C.J.1. This appeal has been based by the foamed Counsel who appeared for the appellants on the grounds stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition. It appeared that there were four witnesses whose names had been included in the list of persons whom the accused wished to be summoned to give evidence on their behalf, and the list had been banded in to the Magistrate's Court on behalf of the accused. These four persons did not attend the trial at the Sessions to which the accused had been committed, notwithstanding that summonses had been served upon them. The trial began on the 27th of October 1919, the prosecution case was concluded on the 29th and the defence ease began on the same day, the 29th. On the 30th it appears that a petition was filed on behalf of the accused applying to have the four willnesses summoned to give evidence on their behalf. The learned Judge refused the, application. This refusal was not based upon the ground that the learned Judge was satis...
Tag this Judgment!Uzir Gazi and anr. Vs. Meher Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.898
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed in certain proceedings taken in connection with the execution of a decree under the following circumstances. The appellants before us, Uzir Gazi and another, obtained a decree in the Second Munsif's Court at Baruipur against the respondent Meher Ali in Suit No. 616 of 1915 on the 13th July 1916. One Dassi Bibi obtained an ex parte decree against the said Uzir Gazi and another in the Small Cause Court at Sealdah on the 3rd May 1917. On the 5th May, she got the decree transferred to the Court at Baruipur and she attached the decree obtained by the Gazis against Meher Ali, and on the 28th May satisfaction of the full amount payable under the decree obtained by the Gazis against Maher Ali was entered upon the decree. In the meantime, on the 22nd May 1917, the Gazis applied to the Small Cause Court Judge at Sealdah for setting aside the decree obtained by Dassi Bibi against them. The application was disposed of on the 1st October 1917, when the e...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Kissen Khetry Vs. Lukhmi Chand Jhawar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.541
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that a contract for sale of piece goods, alleged to have been made between him and the defendants on the 2nd August 1918, was invalid, and that an award made by the arbitration tribunal of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce in their favour on the 5th June 1919 for damages for breach of the said contract was equally void and inoperative. The plaintiff also prayed for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from enforcing the award. The suit was instituted on the 16th June 1919. On the 20th June, the plaintiff applied for an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of the suit and an ad interim injunction during the pendency of the Rule on the application. A Rule was issued and an ad interim injunction was granted on terms as to security. The Rule for interlocutory injunction was heard on the 25th July 1919. Mr. Justice Rankin, as appears from his judgment, declined to entertain the hearing of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajlakhi Debya, Widow of Hareswar Sanyal Vs. Sarola Sundari Debya Chow ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.803
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover arrears of maintenance under a Masahara Bandegi Patra, dated the 12th Sraban 1255,2. The deed was executed by one Jugal Kishore Acharji Choudhuri in favour of his daughter Janoki Debi. It recites that she had been receiving Rs. 317 for her maintenance and other expenses from his Zamindary, and that unless some deed was executed, objection might be raised in future to her getting the ' settled amount of maintenance. ' The deed then (according to the translation furnished to the Court on behalf of the appellant) runs as follows: 'So I make the said amount of your maintenance permanent. Oat of the said amount deducting Rs. 79 which is the annual profits from the 25 Puras of Brahmattar lands within my Zamindary, you shall get year after year the balance of Rs. 238 in Company's coin from my Zemindary in the line of my daughter's sons born of your womb.'3. The word in the original is Douhitransha and has been rendered as 'in the line of my daugh...
Tag this Judgment!Hon'ble Sir Bejoy Chand Mahatap Bahadur Maharaj Adhiraj of Burdwan Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.182
1. This appeal arises out of a suit originally brought by the plaintiffs to set aside the sale under the Patni Regulation of a patni known as Lot Debibarpur or arrears of rent due in respect thereof for the year 1322. The plaintiffs are some of the many co-sharers in the patni and own between them a one-anna, nine ganda three kara Bhare: Mritunjoy Ghose, the defendant No. 1, was the purabaser at the sale on the 15th May 1916. The Maharaj Adhiraj of Burdwan, the Zamindar, is the defendant No. 2.2. During the pendency of the suit the rent due for the first half of the following year 1323 being in arrears the patni was again sold on the 16th November 1916 and was purchased by Niranka Chandra Bose. The plaint was accordingly amended. A prayer for setting aside the second sale was added and Niranka was impleaded as defendant No. 22.3. The Court below found that the first sale was irregular and set it aside. It was further held that the second sale fell with the first, the proceedings having...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Krishna Mukherjee Vs. Satish Chandra Mittra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.922
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule granted by this Court, the learned Judges being my learned brothers Mr. Justice Chaudhuri and Mr. Justice' Newbould, calling upon the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order complained against should not be set aside or why such other further order should not be made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The order complained of was made by the learned Sessions Judge of Burdwan, and by such order he allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of and sentences upon the appellants, Satish Chandra Mitter, Puma Chandra Mitter and Keshab Chandra Mitter. There was a separate appeal presented by the fourth accused Seodhan Dobey, and the conviction of and sentence upon this appellant was set aside. The learned Judge ordered a re-trial in both cases.3. The first point, that we have to consider, was raised by Mr. Sanyal, the learned Vakil for the accused persons. He urged that Mr. Mukherjee who is appearing for...
Tag this Judgment!E.S. Levy and ors. Vs. D.E. Ezra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal378,62Ind.Cas.199
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for a mandatory injunction to remove and demolish a wall crested by the defendants. The rights of the parties depend on a consent decree made on the 18th June 1918 in a previous litigation between them as the authorities of two Jewish Synagogues, Neveh Shalome and Maghen David. Under that decree, the respondents undertook to make over absolutely; to the plaintiffs certain disputed godowns with the land whereon the buildings stood and also pieces of land marked A and B on an annexed plan on either side of the Neveh Shalome Holy Boom. The terms of the settlement further provided that the appellants would, at the request of the respondents, separate the two pieces of land from the land of the Maghen David Synagogue by a proper brick wall, and, in default, the respondents would be at liberty to build the same at the cost of the appellants. There was a third provision that the Maghen David Synagogue would be at liberty to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »