Kolkata Court November 1905 Judgments

Amirullah Mahomed Vs. Nazir Mahomed

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal104

Ghose, J.1. The facts of this case are shortly these:--One Gumai Nasya held an occupancy holding under Roop Mohun, a permanent tenureholder. Gumai sublet the lands comprised in his holding to the ancestor of the present defendants, but the sublease was not made under a registered instrument, nor was it made with the consent of the landlord. In the year 1887-88 the plaintiff purchased Roop Mohun's interest in the permanent tenure and subsequently acquired the occupancy holding of Gumai by a registered kabala. And he then instituted the present suit for establishment of his right to the disputed lands and for khas possession on the ground that by his purchase of the occupancy holding the right of occupancy had merged into the plaintiff's superior interest: that the defendants were under-raiyats under Gumai, and that, under the provisions of Section 85(1) they were not entitled to remain in possession.2. One of the questions raised between the parties in the Court below was whether the de...

Kali Sundari Debi Vs. Dharani Kanta Lahiri

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal279

Ghose and Pargiter, JJ.1. This appeal arises cut of a suit for rent instituted by the zemindar against the defendant, who had at one time held an 8 1/2-anna share of a taluq under him, the plaintiff. This 8 1/2-anna share the defendant transferred to a third party in Aswin 1306 B.S. The present suit is in respect of the rent from Aswin 1305 to Pous 1308.2. It appears that when the said transfer was made, the notices prescribed by Section 12 of the Bengal Tenancy Act were given to the zemindar. But notwithstanding this he has brought the present suit for recovery of rent for the entire period from Aswin 1305 to Pous 1308 against the transferor, the defendant; and the whole question that was raised between the parties in the Court below was whether, notwithstanding this transfer, the defendant was still liable to the zemindar for the entire rent claimed.3. The Court below apparently considered the act of the defendant in making the transfer in question as a subdivision of the tenure; and...

Chander Pershad Vs. Sham Koer

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal676

Pratt and Bodilly, JJ.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge was right in allowing the decree-holder to execute his mortgage-decree against the objector, whose deceased father was the judgment-debtor. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara law, and the objector was not a party to the suit upon the mortgage. The Sub-Judge observes that there was no evidence that the objector was alive at the time when the decree was obtained, but we gather from the record that the parties were not called upon to adduce evidence and that the Court did not frame or investigate any issue of fact. The objector claims the mortgaged property by survivorship and not as legal representative of his father. There is some conflict of views on this question in the various High Courts. The appellant relies upon Juga Lal Chandhuri v. Audit Behari Prosad Singh (1900) 6 C.W.N. 223 and Kali Krishna Sarkar v. Raghunath Deb (1903) I.L.R. 31 Calc. 224, which however refer to money decree...

Kallar Roy Vs. Ganga Pershad Singh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal998

Pratt and Bodilly, JJ. 1. The plaintiffs sued for the recovery of arrears of malikana for a period of 12 years. The first Court gave them a decree for the fall period together with interest at 12 per cent. per annum as for arrears of rent. On appeal by one of the defendants it was held that the plaintiff could recover for six years only under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, and that he was entitled to six per cent, interest, by way of damages. The defendants' claim to be made liable for his share only and not jointly with the other defendants was disallowed.2. The plaintiff appeals on the question of limitation, and the same defendant prefers a cross-appeal on three points:(1) That the 3 years' rule of limitation applies.(2) That he should not be held jointly liable with the other defendants.(3) That plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest.3. In the case of Ramdin v. Kalka Pershad (1884) I.L.R. 7 All. 502 : L.R. 12 I.A. 12 it was held by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee...

Baul Chandra Chakravarti Vs. Nistarini Debi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal136

Rampini and Mookerjee, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought to recover possession of certain land. The plaintiff is the transferee of the interests of the former owner of the land, who granted a lease of it to one Bama Sundari Debi, the mother of the defendant No. 1. In a suit in 1877 between (he predecessor of the plaintiff and Bamasundari a solenama was entered into by which the plaintiff in that suit granted a mokarari jama to Bamasundari at a rent of Rs. 21-3 for her lifetime, reserving the right to re-enter after her death. Bamasundari Debi died in 1902; and her daughter and another person are now in occupation. The present plaintiff therefore sues to establish his right of re-entry and to eject the defendants.2. The lower Courts have found that the defendants occupy the position of occupancy miyats and cannot be ejected, and, furthermore, that it was necessary before ejecting them to give notice to quit.3. The plaintiff now appeals to this Court; and the lea...

Uma Churn Mahaldar Vs. Narendra Nath Basu

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal273

Rampini, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The suit is brought upon a registered kabuliyat dated the 8th Magh 1305.2. The Court of First Instance dismissed the suit.3. The lower Appellate Court has given the plaintiff a decree.4. The defendant No. 1 appeals to us; and on his behalf three pleas have been taken, namely, first, that the kabuliyat is void and inoperative; secondly, that undue influence was used to extract the kabuliyat from the defendant; and, thirdly, that the terms of the kabuliyat are not valid under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as the increase of rent agreed to exceeds by more than two annas in the rupee the old rent.5. There is, in my opinion, no force in any of these pleas.6. I agree with the learned District Judge in holding that under Sections 14 and 39 of the Court of Wards Act (IX of 1879, B.C.) the manager had a prima facie right to grant the lease, and that it must be presumed that he had the sanction of the Collector under...

Kissen Gopal Sadaney Vs. Kally Prosonno Sett

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal633

Woodroffe, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance.2. The defendants are seven annas share-holders in the house and premises No. 39 Clive Street, Calcutta. It is admitted that on the 31st August 1900 they entered into an agreement in writing with the plaintiff for the sale of the premises for the sum of Rs. 20,343-12.3. Only one of the defendants, Kally Prosonno Sett, has appeared to defend the suit, though some others have filed written statements.4. According to the evidence given on behalf of the defendant Kally Prosonno Sett, one at least of the defendants is willing to carry out the contract.5. Kally Prosonno Sett's son, Satya Gopal Sett, says that the agreement for sale was entered into to enable a debt to be discharged, that that has since been done and that the property has considerably increased in value; that this property is the only property the family now possess in Calcutta, and, he says, as they get their livelihood from it and from some muffassil properties, the va...

Roy Vs. Thakur Ram Jiwan Singh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal363

Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The only question argued upon this appeal, and which was the only question upon which the case was decided by the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, is whether the khorposh lease, which was granted by Thakur Chaitan Singh to Madhu Sudan Singh, tinder whom the plaintiff claims, was valid or not. At the time that grant was made, the estate in respect of a portion of which the grant was made was under the Chutia Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, and under Section 3, Sub-section (a) of that Act, Thakur Chaitan Singh was incompetent to make that khorposh grant. But in August 1897 that disability came to an end and, after it had come to an end, Thakur Chaitan Singh received on two occasions, once in July 1898 and again in April 1899, the rent payable by the khorposhdar under the khorposh grant. No doubt the Thakur was under a legal disability at the time he made the grant, but the contention of the plaintiff, who claims, as I have said, under Madhu Sudan...

Moran Vs. Bhagbat Lal Saha

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1906)ILR33Cal133

Pratt and Bodilly, JJ.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs against their tenants for recovery of possession of certain Jands, which it is alleged, had been encroached upon in excess of the actual land appertaining to their holding.2. The first Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. The learned District Judge has reversed that decision in a very complete judgment, from which it appears that he carefully went into the evidence on both sides, and in addition, with a view to a better, understanding of that evidence and to clear up some doubtful points, he visited the spot and observed the local character of the building to which a portion of the case related, and the banks of the adjacent lake, and other matters, to which he refers in his judgment.3. The only points which have been urged before us in appeal are contained in the first two grounds of the memorandum of appeal, namely, that the learned Judge erred in holding a local inspection in the absence of the plaintiffs or their agents and w...

Poorna Chand Bural and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta

Court: Kolkata

Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule was issued by this Court calling upon the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the conviction of the petitioners under Section 574 of the Calcutta Municipal Act read with Section 408 and the sentences of fine imposed upon them should not he set aside.2. It is not necessary to go into an elaborate examination of the facts of this case, but it is sufficient to state that the General Committee of the Corporation caused a written notice to be served upon the owners of the property in question calling upon them to carry out improvements under Section 408 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. At the time when this notice was served upon them, the property was the subject-matter of litigation, namely, a suit for partition was then pending on the Original Side of this Court. A decree for partition was made on the 15th of May 1905, and on the very next day the petitioners gave notice to the Corporation under Section 419 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, that they i...