Kolkata Court June 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.
Hari Abdullah and anr. Vs. Safiullah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.204
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for damages for breach of obligation by their partner. The plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a partnership contract on the 29th November 1912. Article 3 of the deed laid down that the business would be carried on for two years certain. Article 12 provided that none should carry on singly or jointly with others either in his own name or benami or in anywise join in or keep concern with similar business at Tinsukia. Article 18 finally stated that if any difference should arise between the partners or their respective representatives in regard to the construction of any of the articles therein contained or to any act or thing to be made or done in pursuance thereof or in regard to the rights or liabilities of any partner thereunder or to any other matter or things relating to the said partnership or the affairs thereof, such difference would be forth with referred to three arbitrators, one to be appoint...
Gosta Behari Pramanick and ors. Vs. Atar Sundari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.94
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for contribution. Plaintiffs and the father of the defendant were joint owners of a putni. The share of the plaintiffs was 7/8ths, while the share held by the father of the defendant was 1/2th. On the death of the father of the defendant, that share was taken by inheritance by the defendant and her sister. Under the terms of the putni lease, certain sums had to be paid into the Collectorate by the kutnidars. The plaintiffs allege that they paid the whole amount due and are consequently entitled to contribution in respect of the sum paid in excess of what was their legitimate share. A difficulty has, however, been created by the death of the sister of the defendant since the payment was made. The plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to recover the whole of the sum paid in excess of their own share from the defendant alone. This contention has been negatived by both the Courts below. In our opinion there ...
Domai Bara Medhi Vs. Kereo Kolita and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.444
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of posssession of a certain parcel of land on declaration of title. The case of the defendant was that this parcel of land did originally belong to the plaintiffs, but they or their predesessor in-interest had sold the land to him for a sum of Rs. 95. The deed, it appears, was unregistered. It was in the defendant's possession from the date of its execution in March 1911 up to some time in 1912. The defendant does not now produce if, and the learned Subordinate Judge in the Court- of first appeal has found that he has not satisfactorily accounted for this deed Ha, therefore, very properly held that secondary evidence as to its contents is inadmissible. His further findings of fact are that the plaintiffs in fact owed a cum of Rs. 1058 to the defendant and that in lieu of payment of interest he was allowed the usufruct of the land.2. On these findings of fact we see no reason to interfere with the decree made by ...
Sharajini Dasi Vs. Kazi Abdul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.452
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the third defendant in a suit for declaration of title to a Patni Taluk. The patni was created on the 15th January 1879 and was in its inception, held by Obedulla Khan under Nilmoni Bhatterjee as the Zemindar. Subsequently one Gohar Ali Kazi purchased an one-eighth share both in the patni and in the Zemindari. The result of these pruchases by Gohar Ali was that the patni interest in the one-eighth share merged in the Zemindari interest in the one-eighth share. All that remained of the original patni was a seven-eighths share under the owner of an equal share of the Zemindari. The lands were also partitioned, so that specific lands corresponding to seven-eighths of the lands comprised in the original patni were allotted to the patnidar. This patni was brought to sale under the Patni Regulation on the 15th May 1913. The point in controversy is, whether this was a valid sale under the Regulation and passed a good title to the purchaser...
Kailash Chandra Bhowmik Vs. Chandra Kanta Bhowmik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.651
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for contribution. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendants or their predecessors in-interest agreed to deliver 18 cottas of land in their joint possession to certain persons spoken of as the Pals. They failed to do so and a suit was, therefore, brought against them for damages for breach of contrast. The suit was decreed against the present plaintiff and the three defendants with costs. Next followed a suit for mesne profits in respect of the period in which the plaintiff and the three defendants remained in wrongful possession of the said 18 cottas of land. That suit also was decreed with costs. The Pals put their decrees into execution and recovered the amount due from the plaintiff. The plaintiff now seeks to recover from the three defendants three-fourths of the money he had to pay in execution of the said decree. He failed in both the Courts below and now he appeals to this Court.2. It is contended on behalf of the defendants tha...
Hari Prosad Roy Chowdhury Vs. Rama Prosad Rai Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.414
1. These six, appeals arise out of suits brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant No. 1 one Hari Prosad the sums paid by the plaintiff in satisfaction of six rent decrees which according to the plaintiff were justly payable by defendant No. 1.2. It appears that the original owners of certain tenures wore the plaintiff, Rama Prosad, the defendant No. 1 Hari Prosad and one Kali Prosad, the last two being brothers. On the death of Kali Prosad he was succeeded first by his widow and then by his daughter Chandra Kumari. Chandra Kumari, it appears, died towards the close of the year 1316. Thereafter the landlord brought six rent suits claiming rent for the years 1313 to 1316 that is for four years during which Chandra Kumari Was alive. He made parties defendants to these six rent suits Rama Prosad, Hari Prosad and one Sital Prosad who was the daughter's son of Chandra Kumari and therefore heir to stridhan property. The rent-suits were decreed and payment by the defendant was di...
Chandra Binode Kundu Vs. Sheikh Ala Bux Dewan and on His Death One of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal15,58Ind.Cas.353
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder from an order made by the Court of Appeal below in affirmance of an order of dismissal passed by the primary Court on an application for execution of a decree. The applicants hold a degree for money against the respondent; and in execution of that decree they have attached his holding. It so happens that the applicants are the landlords of the respondent, who is a raiyat with right of occupancy in the attached holding. His objection is that the holding is not transferable by custom or local usage and cannot be sold in execution of the decree held by the applicant. The Courts below have given effect to this objection and have held that a non-transferable occupancy holding cannot, if the ryot objects, be sold in execution of a decree for money, even though the decree-holder be the sole landlord of the ryot. There is no authority in this Court which explicitly affirms this proposition; but the question was raised and decided i...
Srimati Benodini Hazrani, Wife of BepIn Hazra Vs. Susthu Hazrani, Daug ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.740
1. The question involved in this case is one of inheritance to a person of the name of Dwarikanath Hazra, who was the father of the plaintiff and also of defendant No. 1. On the death of Dwariki he was succeeded by his widow, and on the death of the widow the contest is between the two daughters. One daughter, the plaintiff, at the time when the succession opened out was married and had a son. The other daughter, defendant No. 1, was a childless widow. But it has been found, and in fast it is not disputed, that in the caste to which the parties belong widow re marriage is permitted. At the time when the succession opened out, defendant No. 1, the widowed daughter, was only 16 or 17 years of are. She being thus of child-bearing age and it being open to her at any time to marry, it has been held by the District Judge that she was a daughter likely to have a male issue and, therefore, entitled to succeed along with the plaintiff, who is a married daughter having a son.2. We think that in ...
Kamini Kumar Chandra the Chairman of the Silchar Municipality Vs. Reba ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal346,60Ind.Cas.756
Asutosh Mookerjee, Actg. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Chairman of the Silchar Municipality in a suit instituted against the Municipality by the plaintiff for recovery of wages, The plaintiff accepted an appointment under the Commissioners on the 25th July 1895, and had variant ofibe3 from time to time, till ultimately he was appointed to be the Head Clerk and Accountant on a salary of Rs. 59 a month. While he held such appointment, he was suspended on the 25th November 1915 under orders of this Vice-chairman, He remained under suspension till the 27th April 1917, i,e' for a period of one year, five months and two days, when he was removed permanently from this post. No reasons were assigns for his suspension or removal. In the picent suit, he sues to recover his wages from the 25fch November 1915 till the 27ih April 1917, less the amounts which were paid to him by way of compassionate allowance for five months and five days during the period of suspension. In our opinion, there is n...
Ruhini Nandan Ghose and anr. Vs. Rajendra Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.291
1. The main question raised in the appeal is, whether the decree absolute for sale made on the 6th June 1903 in a suit on a mortgage was a nullity.2. It appears that a preliminary decree on the mortgage was passed on the 27th February 1902 against the mortgagors, Preonath and Amulya, a minor who was represented by his guardian, Preonath, On the 12th July 1903;, Preonath died but his heirs were not substituted on the record nor was any guardian ad litem appointed with respect to the minor Amulya. The decree absolute was made on the 6th june 1903; the property was sold on the 11th August 1903 under that decree and the sale was confirmed on the 5th September 1903. The present suit was instituted on the 16th August 1915 by the heirs of Preonath for a declaration that the decree absolute and the proceedings held there under were void.3. The first Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the lower Appellate Court gave the plaintiff a decree.4. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who purchased the proper...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›