Kolkata Court April 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.
Abdul Foatim Mohamed Vs. Ijjatannessa Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.782
1. This Rule is directed against an order by which on the 27th November 1919 the District Judge of Sylhet made or confirmed an order removing the mutwalli of a certain Wakf and appointing in his place one of the beneficiaries who is the opposite party before us. From the judgment delivered by the District Judge it appears that he was of opinion that the dedication in question was not a valid Wakf or a grant for religious and charitable purposes.2. It is common ground before us that as a matter of fact this Wakfnama is not a valid Wakf, being one made in favour of the family of descendants of the settler without any ultimate substantial trust for charitable purposes. But the opposite party has endeavoured to support the order that has been made by reference to Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Trusts Act of 1882. It should be mentioned here that the order of the District Judge was one not made in a suit but one made on a petition, and it is suggested by the opposite party that the discha...
AminuddIn Mullick Vs. Atormoni Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.879
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a mortgage decree.2. The preliminary decree upon the mortgage was obtained in the Court of the 2nd Munsif of Howrah who had power to try suits up to the value of Rs. 2,000, the decree being nearly for that sum. Subsequently the Munsif having been transferred and his successor not having been vested with powers to try suits up to Rs. 2,000, the final decree in the case was made by the Subordinate Judge of Howrah. The plaintiff decree-holder, howevar, applied for execution of the decree before the 2nd Munsif who had, in the meantime, been empowered to try suits upto Rs. 2,000. The decree was executed in that Court, with the result that certain properties of the judgment debtor were sold and a portion of the decree was realised by the proceeds of the sale.3. The judgment debtor then applied to have the sale set aside under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 90. So far as the application was based on Order XXI, Rule 90, no evidence wa...
Jogesh Chandra Mandal Vs. Chinta Mani Prodhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.951
1. This Rule is directed against an order returning a plaint for presentation to the proper Court.2. The order was made by the Small Cause Court, Sealdah, on the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the claim involved regular accounting.3. Now, the mere fact that in deciding the question in controversy between the parties accounts may have to be gone into, would not necessarily make the suit one for accounts.4. In the present case the defendant took advances from the plaintiff and agreed to re pay the amount by constructing earth work under the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that the defendant took Rs. 846-240 from time to time on a Hatchita and re paid Rs. 246-8-0 by supplying coolies and doing earth-work and that Rs. 599-10-10 was the balance due. That is the specific amount which was claimed in the plaint and the plaintiff did not claim any accounts. It was contended that the fact that money was taken in advance by the defendant shows that he was bound to r...
Abhoy Charan Datta Vs. Futtari Dasi Alias Futtani Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.833
1. In our opinion the decree of the District Judge in this case was manifestly erroneous, and should not have been confirmed by this Court. The plaintiffs sued to eject the defendant on the allegations that they themselves were raiyats, that the defendant was an under raiyat and that steps had been taken in accordance with law to terminate by service of notice the under raiyati tenancy. The Court of first instance found that the alleged notice had not been served and dismissed the suit. In this view, that Court did not investigate the question raised by the defendant, namely, whether the plaintiffs had the alleged title. Upon appeal, the District Judge received in evidence a decree in a previous litigation which, by itself, really proved nothing. He set aside the finding of the first Court upon the question of notice and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree, because they had established that they were the landlords of the defendant. This view has been accepted by Mr. Just...
Rani Mina Kumari Saheba, and on Her Death Her Heir and Legal Represent ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.848
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for recovery of possession of certain lands, which constituted two occupancy holdings which had been transferred by the raiyats to the defendants. The plaintiff sought to eject the defendants on the ground that the holdings were not transferable without the cansent of the landlord.2. The defence was that they were transferable without payment of any nazar but as the landlord was demanding nazar on transfers, the defendants were willing to pay it.3. The Courts below have found that occupancy holdings in the disputed mahal are transferable by custom on payment of 25 per cent. of the purchase money as nazar. The Court of first instance directed the defendants to pay the nazar within a month of the date of the judgment, failing which the plaintiff was to get khas possession. That decree has been affirmed on appeal by the District Judge and the plaintiff has appealed to this Court.4. It has been contended before us that the custom found by the Cou...
Constance Catherine Moreno Vs. Henry William Bunn Moreno
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.216
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage made upon a petition presented by a husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground that his wife had, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of adultery.2. The petitioner and the respondent were married on the 21st May 1S02 and lived together until the month of February 1905, Daring this period, two children were born to them, a daughter, now sixteen years of age, and a son who is dead. In February 1905, the respondent left the petitioner and lived apart till the end of the year 1912, or the beginning of the year 1913. The petitioner alleges that after the respondent had left him, she lived in adultery with one Pratti, now deceased. She gave birth to two children in 1907 and 1908; but the petitioner was not aware either of the adultery with Pratti or of the birth of the children. In 1909 one Abro commenced divorce proceeding against his own wife and made ...
Dina Nath Law Vs. Metharam Navalrai and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.785
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for damages for breath of contract. On the 30th July 1917 the plaintiff agreed to purchase and the defendant firm agreed to sell 15 tons aluminium ingots at Rs. 200 per owt. On the 6th August 1919 Anderson and Macrae, who purported to act as brokers, passed a Bought Note in the following terms :We have this day bought by your order and for your account from Metharam Naval rai, 117 Corporation Street, the following:15 tons (fifteen) Aluminium ingots, 93 per cent purity, at rupees two hundred only exgodown. The Aluminium may be tested by the buyer prior to delivery within a week from date. Delivery to be taken within 45 days from date of contract from seller's godown. After the expiry of the above period, the goods will remain at buyer's risk and account, and a rental of rupees ten only per day will be charged. Twenty-four hours' notice to be given before delivery is taken.2. Tarms and conditions of this contract, Cash ...
In Re: A.A. Hailes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.943
Rankin, J.1. In this case I think that, as it is admitted that the creditor who appears as respondent to dispute the right of the insolvent to have an annulment of adjudication under Section 21 is a creditor upon a judgment which carries interest at 6 per cent. the insolvent has not brought himself within the large of Section 21 unless he satisfies me that Le has paid to the creditor, being a creditor in respect of a debt which was proved such sum as would have been a complete discharge to him in respect of that debt, had there been no bankruptcy that Under Section 21 the position is, that an insolvent is entitled to claim a right which the section gives him, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court, that the debts of the insolvent are paid in full It is true that the right is not an absolute right because the insolvent may have mis-conducted himself to such an extent that even then the Court may have discretion to refuse it. Apart from any such consideration. As that, a person...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Makbul Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal474,60Ind.Cas.984
1. An estate, now vested in the plaintiff, the appellant before UP, was originally held in two undivided moieties. The owner of one moiety granted a tenure thereof in favour of two persons, Fatch Ali Miji and Asauddin Miji, evidenced by a Kbuliyat which they executed, dated the 1st Chaitra, 1271 (1865). In this document the tenure is referred to as an itmam. The other majority was also held by the same two persons as a tenure, described as a Taluk. It may be conceded to the plaintiff, as his case is, that the taluk was created orally at the same time as the itmam, though there is really no evidence how the taluk same into existence.2. In 1878, after the death of Fatch Ali and Asauddin, the widow and grandson of the former and the widow and daughter of the latter conveyed the two tenures to Haidar Ali, the predecessor in interest of the defendants.3. The Suit was brought en the basis that the terms and conditions of the itmem, as they appear in the kabuliyat of 1865, are inconsistent wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›