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.
Kulendra Kishore Roy Vs. Rai Kishori Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal176,62Ind.Cas.112
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage-bond.2. The plaintiff's claim was decreed in full by the Munsif but was reduced by the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.3. The only point to be considered in this appeal is, what would be the effect of the nonappearance of the plaintiff No. 1 after an order by the Court for his appearance.4. The plaintiff applied to be examined by commission. Against that application, the defendant filed a petition supported by an affidavit, asking that the plaintiff's request should be refused and that the plaintiff should be directed to appear in person for examination.5. The Court passed the following order:6. 'Plaintiff's prayer for his examination is disallowed as prated for. The plaintiff No. 1 must come to Court personally.' This order was passed on the 20th Marsh. On the 5th April, the suit was transferred to another Munsif for trial and was heard and decided on the 11th May 1917. The plaintiff No. 1 did not appear...
Prasanna Kumar Chanda Vs. Kuladhar Rakshit, Minor, by Babu Tara Prasan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.252
Newbould, J.1. The plaintiff and the father of the defendant in this suit were jointly liable under a bond to one Chandra Kanta. Chandra Kanta sued on that bond and obtained a decree against the plaintiff and the defendant. The full decretal amount was realized from the plaintiff and be brought this suit for contribution claiming half the amount from the defendant. The suit has been dismissed on the finding that the defendant's half share of the debt had been discharged by payment of Rs. 200 made before Chandra Kanta's suit was instituted. It is contended that as the decree declared the defendant's liability, he could not raise the plea that he was not liable. I am unable to see that an ex parte decree obtained against two joint debtors operates as res judicata as between those two debtors, when the Question of their respective liability is raised in a contribution suit. I would further bold that on the finding of fact, the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge is just. The ease, eve...
Shoroshi Charan Ghose and ors. Vs. Bhagloo Sah and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.877
Mookerjee, C.J.1. The controversy in this case relates to the nature of the disputed tenancy. The plaintiffs-appellants maintained that the tenancy was of a temporary nature and was non-transferable. The defendants contended that the tenancy was of a permanent character and was transferable. The Courts below have found that the origin of the tenancy was unknown but that it had been in existence for at least half a century, that the land was let out for residential purposes, that it had been held at a uniform rent, and that the tenant had actually built a dwelling house thereon and lived there from the inception of the tenancy till the sale to the defendants. From these circumstances, the District Judge drew the inference that the tenancy was permanent and transferable. His conclusion is supported by a long series of decisions of recognised authority which are reviewed in the case of Mohoram Sheikh Chaprasi v. Telamuddin Khan 13 Ind. Cas. 606 : 15 C.L.J. 220 : 16 C.W.N. 567 and are in h...
Biswambhar Mandal Vs. Nasarat Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.912
Asutosh Mookrjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for ejectment.2. The plaintiff-respondent is the putnidar of the property in litigation. He sued the raiyat under him for recovery of arrears of rent, obtained a decree and purchased the raiyati holding at the execution sale. He could not, however, obtain actual possession, as the appellant claimed to be in occupation as usufructuary mortgagee in possession from an under-raiyat. The plaintiff thereupon instituted this suit for recovery of possession. The defendant denied his title as the superior landlord, which, however, has been fully made cut. The defendant can thus resist the claim for ejectment, only upon proof that he has acquired a good title under his alleged usufructuary mortgage, but this he has failed to establish. The under-raiyati interest was prima facie non transferable, as is clear from the decision in. Bonomali v. Koylash Chunder 4 C. 135...
Mohabor Rahman Vs. Hazi Abdur Rahim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal210,62Ind.Cas.115
1. This Rule was granted, calling upon the opposite party to show cause why a suit pending in the Court of the District Judge of Hooghly should not be transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge at Howrah.2. The suit was one under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the removal of the defendant-opposite party from the office of Mutwalli of a waqf property and for other reliefs. The application for transfer was made on the ground of convenience of the parties. The District Judge of Hooghly was moved by the petitioner for transferring the case, but he disallowed the application, being of opinion that a suit coming under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code 'requires authorization by the Local Government in the case of a Court which is not the principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction.'3. Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that a suit may be instituted in the principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that beh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›