Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 58Ind.Cas.705
Richardson, J.1. The appellant is the defendant No. 1 in a suit brought by the plaintiff as Mutwalli of a religious and charitable endowment to recover possession of certain landed property mortgaged by the former Mutwalli (the defendant No. 2) to the predecessor in-title of the defendant No. 1. The defendants, other than the defendant No. 1, are formal parties.2. The story is a not uncommon one. A wakf was created by Abdul Rahim by a registered deed, dated the 25th February 1894. By that document he dedicated certain property, valued at Rs. 2,000, to pious uses, appointed himself the first Mutwalli, laid down a rule of succession to the office and prescribed the mode in which the rents and profits were to be expended. On his death, some month's later, without issue the office devolved or should have devolved on his sister, Nazirannessa (defendant No. 2), after whom it was to go to his younger brother, Abdul Alim, and the male descendants of the latter. It was not long before the found...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.126
1. This appeal arises out of a (SIC) for accounts against an agent.2. It appears that the defendant No. 1 and the predecessor of the defendant No. 2 were appointed Tahsildars of the debutter properties of a certain thakur in 1287 when the plaintiff's father, Radha Raman, was the shebait of the thakur.3. The Tahsildars executed a security bond in Bhadro 1287 in favour of the thakur represented by its shebait Radha Raman, hypothecating certain immoveable properties for the due performance of their duties as gomasta. They acted as Tahsildars till Choitra 1316 when one of them died and the other, the defendant No. 1, worked till Sraban 1318 when he was dismissed. The plaintiff's father died in Bhadro 1310 when the plaintiff succeeded as shebait of the thakur.4. The present suit was instituted on the 14th May 1915 against the defendants for accounts from 1311 to 1317. The Court of first instance held - that the agency terminated on the death of the plaintiff's father in Bhadro 1310 and, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 57Ind.Cas.762
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which the District Judge of Jessoredeclined to restore an appeal which had been dismissed in default. The reason assigned for the dismissal in default in the first instance was that the Pleader had made a delay of 15 minutes in appearing before the Court when the appeal was called on for hearing. In his application for restoration the appellant has offered explanation both of his own absence and also of the failure of his Pleader to attend. We are of opinion that the learned District Judge was wrong in dismissing this application without giving the appellant an opportunity of substantiating the facts on which he relied, and we may point out that it appears that the appeal was in the first instance filed on the 27th August 1918 and was finally put down for hearing on the 10th December 1919. In the interval the hearing had been on eleven different occasions postponed because the Court was otherwise engaged and on one occasion at the instance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 57Ind.Cas.900
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of certain sums of money as rent and damages.2. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were co sharers in certain property, and that under an arrangement between them the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were to remain in possession of the entire property as tenants. In 1911, a suit for partition and accounts was brought by defendant No. 3 against the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and at that time the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, gave up the tenancy. The suit was referred to arbitration and a decree was made on the 24th May 1913 upon the award made by the arbitrators. Under that decree the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were liable to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 801 annas 3.3. The present suit was instituted on the 28th January 1915, and one of the items claimed in the suit was the sum of Rs. 801 annas 3, which the defendants were found liable to pay to the plaintiff under the award of the arbitrator.4. The next item relates ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 57Ind.Cas.972
1. We think that this case must go back to the Court of first instance for re-trial.2. The defendant is in possession of the land and the plaintiff sued for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession. But as the defendant stated that the plaintiff was his benamdar, the Court below held that 'unless the defendant could show some title, he was a mere trespasser and he was, therefore, bound to prove that the plaintiff was his benamdar before the case could be tried upon its merits.' 3. The defendant never admitted the title of the plaintiff and as he was the person in possession of the property, it was for the plaintiff to prove that he, the defendant, was not the owner, see Section 110 of the Evidence Act, Huri Ram v. Raj Coomar Opadhya 8 C. 759 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 490 and Mookto Keshee Debee v. Anundo Chunder Chattopadhya 2 C.L.R. 48.4. The cases relied upon on behalf of the respondent were cases where the plaintiff who was out of possession asserted the transaction to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1921Cal644,66Ind.Cas.752
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to recover a sum of Rs. 19,518-7.0 according to the account given in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The defendants are brothers living in jointness, the defendant No. 1 being the eldest member of the joint family. The plaintiff's case is this: In the year 1896, he came to a place sailed Fuleswar where the defendants were carrying on business, The plaintiff gradually during his stay at Fuleswar became very friendly with the defendants and mutual confidence soon grew up. From time to time, from the year 1899, he entrusted money with the defendants and up to the year 1903, the total amount entrusted to them came up to Rs 6,700. The terms agreed upon between the parties are said to have been these: The defendants were to keep the money entrusted to them for safe custody; they ware at liberty to employ the same in their money-lending business upon their own responsibility; the money so empl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 57Ind.Cas.22
Asutosh Mookeejee, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Ghosh in a suit instituted by the respondent Rashbehari Ghose against the appellant Jacob & Co. for recovery of money due on the sale of shares in the Nalbona Coal Co. When the appeal was called on for final disposal on the 18th March, Mr. Ghosh, Counsel for appellant, made an application for adjournment, which was opposed on behalf of the respondent. At the same time, our attention was drawn by Mr. Pugh, the leading Counsel for the respondent, to the first ground taken in the memorandum of appeal. The application for adjournment did not appear to be reasonable and was refused. Counsel for appellant thereupon stated that be was not prepared to open the appeal, but added that Mr. * *, who had conducted the case for the defence in the Court below and had certified the grounds of appeal, might perhaps appear to support them. Mr. * * came later and intimated that he had not been instructed to proceed with the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 60Ind.Cas.288
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of Mr. Justice Chaudhuri in a suit for recovery of money representing the depreciation in the value of goods supplied by them to the plaintiffs in a damaged condition. The plaintiffs carry on business as a firm importing printed series and selling them to dealers. The defendants are a firm in London carrying on business as exporters of printed series. There have been transactions between the firms since 1910, and, according to the plaintiffs, one of the terms and conditions of business was as follows:Should out and otherwise faulty pieces be found in the cases received, the plaintiff firm should examine one or more of the said cases as the plaintiff firm should think proper in order to arrive at an average of the proportion of faulty pieces in the said cases and on the basis of the said average, claim the usual allowance of 33 1/3 per cent.2. The plaintiffs further assert that on the basis of the survey of a sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 58Ind.Cas.338
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule obtained by Khandkar Hedayatulla calling upon the Deputy Commissioner to show cause why the proceedings complained of should not be quashed. The proceedings are referred to in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the petition. They are under the Assam Forest Regulation, VII of 1891.2. It appears that on the 27th of September 1919 a forester submitted a report to the Divisional Forest Officer, Sylhet Division, charging the petitioner and 11 others with having committed offenses under the said Regulation, VII of 1891, by cutting a fari, settling tenants and otherwise acting in contravention of the provisions of the said Regulation in respect of lands of the reserved forest. Thereupon, summonses were issued upon the petitioner and the 11 others, calling upon them to answer a charge under Section 25 of the said Regulation. These are the proceedings in repeat of which the Rule was granted.3. The main ground upon which the Rule was supported was that a notificat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 58Ind.Cas.924
1. Lewis and Company carry on a carrier's business. They have taken out a trade license under Section 198 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. They have also taken out a license under Section 193 of the Municipal Act for keeping carriages and animals under Section 188 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The Municipality contends that they are persons who are using certain premises for the purpose of keeping horses and cattle and that, under Section 466, these premises ought to be licensed. Their contention is that these animals are let cut on hire by the Company. The learned Magistrate has held that Section 466 is not applicable. The evidence on the record on behalf of the prosecution is that the Company keep horses, buffaloes and bullocks in the premises in question, for hire, and they use them for their business. In cross examination the witness, S.N. Banerjee, License Impostor, says: 'I never saw their cattle being sold nor their horses or cattle being let out on hire singly, that is, without ...
Tag this Judgment!