Kolkata Court May 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.
Bhutnath Jana Vs. Tara Chand Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal551,59Ind.Cas.177
Newbould, J.1. The plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree in a mortgage-suit against one Tara Chand Jana on 6th February 1915. This was a decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code. On 26th January 1918 an application was made for making this decree absolute. To this objection was taken that Tara Chand had died on 19th April 1916. The lower Courts have held that, as the application was not made within six months of Tara Chand's death. Order XXII, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code applied and the suit abated.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal lies. It appears that the lower Appellate Court wrongly treated the appeal to it as an appeal from an order refusing to set aside the abatement of the mortgage-suit. Had it been an appeal from such an order, there would have been no second appeal to this Court, But the lower Appellate Court was clearly wrong on this point. The order against which the appeal was preferred was an order rejecting the application to...
AshiruddIn Mohammad Vs. Taher Mohammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.306
1. The plaintiffs-respondents purchased the property (in respect of which rent has been claimed against the appellant for the years 1319 to 1322 B.S.), from the son, the widow and the daughters of one Rasul Bukhsh. There were five daughters, two of whom bad assigned their interest to their brother. The other three daughters were minors, and their interest was sold by the mother as their natural guardian.2. The Court below has held that the plaintiff had acquired title to the entire property and was entitled to maintain the suit for rent.3. But, having regard to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Imambandi v. Mutsaddi 47 Ind. Cas. 513, 45 0. 878 : 35 M.L.J. 422 : 16 A.L.J. 800 : 24 M.L.T. 330 : 28 C.L.J. 409 : 23 C.W.N. 50 : 5 P.L.W. 276 : 20 Bom. L.R. 022 : 19.9, M.W.N. 91 : 9 L.W. 518 : 46 I.A. 73 (P.C.), there is no doubt that the mother cannot alienate the property of her minor daughters as their de facto guardian. That being so, the plaintiff did not acquire the ...
Srimati Moto (Motomoyi in Vakalatnama) Dasi and ors. Vs. Behari Lal Ch ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.772
1. Two questions have been raised on behalf of the defendants, who are appellants in this case. The first relates to the question of onus of proof with respect to the alleged unchastity of Nithar, a Hindu widow, from whom the plaintiff purchased a one-third share of the property which is the subject-matter of dispute in the present case. But we need not go into that question, because the learned District Judge has, upon a consideration of the evidence of both sides, come to a finding that she is not unchaste.2. The appeal, however, must succeed on the second contention, namely, that the suit is barred by limitation, having regard to the provisions of Article 11 A of Schedule I to the Limitation Act. The plaintiff, as stated above, purchased a one-third share of the property which belonged to Nithar. The defendant No. 1, on the other hand purchased the entire property belonging to the family of which Nithar was a member and dispossessed the plaintiff from the one- third share purchased ...
Upendra Krishna Mondal in His Own Right and as Executor to the Estate ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.615
Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by two of the defendants in a suit for contribution. There is now no dispute as to the facts. The plaintiffs and the defendants are joint owners of a tank situated within the limits of the calcutta Municipality. The tank was in an insanitary condition and the water was so unwholesome as to be a menace to the health of the locality. The Corporation issued a notice on the common manager of the estate of the plaintiffs and the defendants directing him to fill up the tank. The requisition was ignored, with the result that criminal proceedings were instituted. The common manager then obtained a stay of the criminal proceedings and arranged with the plaintiffs to take steps to fill up the tank. The tank was filled up. The plaintiffs then demanded a proportionate share of the expenses from the defendants, who refused to contribute, with the result that the present suit was instituted, The Courts below have decreed the suit. On the present appeal, the...
Abhoy Charan Dutta and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representative ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.510
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The subject-matter of the litigation is a tenure which was purchased by the plaintiffs in execution of a mortgage decree. The identical tenure was purchases in execution of a rent-decree by the defendants who took steps in accordance with Section 167, Bengal Tenancy Act, to annual the interest of the plaintiffs as an in-cumbrance. The subtantial questions in controvery between the parties is, whether the rent-decree operated as a decree for rent under the Bengal Tenancy Act or only as a decree for money. It is not disputed that, if it operated as a rent-decree, the plaintiffs cannot possibly succeed in this suit.2. The Courts below have found the circumstances under which the rent-decree was passed. The tenure belonged in equal halves to one Abdul and to three brothers Meherulla, Arjanulla and Sonaulla. On the death of Meherulla, his share devolved ...
BipIn Behari Saha Vs. Charu Chandra Ghose and on His Death His Heirs a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal816,60Ind.Cas.753
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. The subject-matter of this litigation is a tract of land included n a wakf estate. The plaintiff-respondent seeks to recover possession of the land on he strength of a lease, dated the 19th Jane 1912, while the defendar bases his claim n a lease granted to him on the 16th November 1898. The case for the plaintiff was that the defendant never had a title ' the property, and that if he had a title as a lessee, his interest had been terminated by a notice to quit. There can be no doubt, in our opinion, that the plaintiff has established his title, while the defendant has failed to prove his allegations.2. As regards the title of the plaintiff, we observe that the present mutwalli is a lady who is still a minor. Proceedings were instituted before the District Judge for the appointment of a temporary mutwalli during her minority, and during the pendency of such proceedings the Court granted a lease to the plaintiff through one of its officers who was appoint...
Bhairab Chandra Mondal and ors. Vs. Jiban Krishna Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal748,60Ind.Cas.819
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery possession of land on declaration of title.2. The defendants resisted the claim on the ground that they had acquired a good title under an exchange.3. The Courts below have found that is exchange was effected in the manner pro vided by the Transfer of Property Act that is, as the value of the property was less than Rs. 100, the plaintiffs deliverec possession of the disputed land to this defendants. This is prima facie a completi answer to the claim, but the plaintiffs have established that, though at the time of this exchange they were in possession of tb whole of the property, they had not 8 complete title thereto, as they were themselves purchasers from persons who were entitled only to a half share. Their contention, in substance, is that the defendants acquired a good title to that half share alone and have no title to the remainder.4. The answer of the defendants is that, subsequent to the...
Sripat Singh and ors. Vs. Maharaja Sir Prodyat Kumar Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal219,57Ind.Cas.810
1. This appeal arises out of certain insolvency proceedings. It appears that one Chattarpat Singh applied in the Court of the District Judge of Murshidabad to be declared an insolvent. This was on some date in 1909. His application to that Court was reduced, and the order of the District Judge refusing his application was, affirmed on appeal to this Court. Finally on appeal to the Privy Council Chattarpat Singh was adjudged an insolvent on the 20th November 1916. On the return of the records from England on the 2nd August 1917 a Receiver was appointed. Thereafter with a view to submitting a proposal of composition with his creditors, the insolvent on the 5th March 1918 presented an application to the District Judge praying that the sum really due from him should be ascertained. He annexed to this application three schedules, schedule A being a schedule of debts which he said he had satisfied; schedule B being a schedule of debts which he said had become barred by limitation in the inte...
Shabed Ali Mia Vs. Mahammad Fazlar Rahaman Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.954
1. These two connected appeals arise out of two analogous suits. In the first suit which was numbered 4, the plaintiff Sabed Ali sought to recover from the defendant Fazlur Rahaman Rs. 2,200 as the balance of consideration money for land sold under a certain conveyance by the plaintiff to the defendant. In Suit No. 5 Fazlur Rahaman as plaintiff sought for a declaration that a conveyance executed by him of 4 annas in the said land was void on the ground of fraud and want of consideration. In the Court of first instance Suit No. 4 was decreed and Suit No. 5 was dismissed. On appeal to the District Court the learned District Judge has reversed the findings arrived at by the Subordinate Judge and has dismissed Suit No. 4 and has decreed Suit No. 5.2. The contentions of the appellant before us are, first, that the learned District Judge has misplaced the burden of proof, and secondly, that he has omitted to take into consideration a document, Exhibit 2, on which reliance was placed in the C...
(Mahamad) Mehdiali Khan Panee, Minor by His Next Friend Mahamed Haidar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.956
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to a certain share in the land in question and for khas possession. The land in suit is an occupancy holding belonging originally to three brothers. The defendant No. 1 in the suit is the purchaser of the interest in the holding of two of the brothers and of one of the two sons of the third brother. Plaintiffs case in the first Court was that this transfer by way of sale of a large share of the occupancy holding had been followed by a repudiation of the tenancy and that in consequence he was entitled to re enter in his share in the superior interest.2. Both the Courts below have dismissed his suit and in the appeal that he has preferred to this Court his contention before us is that defendant No. 1 having repudiated his tenancy under him, the co-sharer landlord, he is entitled to obtain khas possession in accordance with his share in the interest purchased by defendant No. 1 in the holding. We are...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »