Kolkata Court January 1908 Judgments
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Duma Lal Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.521
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. Two short questions arise upon this appeal which is as to the amount of compensation awarded by the Second Subordinate Judge of Hughly under the Land Acquisition Act, The questions arise, first, as to the value of the land, and, secondly, as to the value of the trees upon the land. The land acquired was about 3 bighas, 6 cottahs and 7 chittacks. The Land Acquisition Deputy Collector awarded, compensation at the rate of Rs. 500, per bigha for firm land, Rs. 250 a bigha for some tank land and Rs. 393 as the Value of trees, The Subordinate Judge has increased that compensation. He has given Rs. l,200 per bigha for firm land. Rs. 500 per bigha for the tank land and Rs. 1,187 as market-value of the trees. Both parties were dissatisfied and both have appealed.2. The Secretary of State says that upon the claimant's own showing the land was worth only Its. 800 a bigha, and that the principle upon which the Subordinate Judge has proceeded in assessing the compensation to...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Mohabir Persad Vs. Charles Fox and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.112
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for ejectment. The plaintiff alleged that Mr. Charles Fox, originally described as defendant No. 12, was his tenant in respect of the disputed land in which he had no guzashta or transferable right or any sort of title except the right to cultivate it. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant No. 12 had from time to time alienated portions of the land comprised in his tenancy, to the other defendant and that on the 9th August 1902, he completely divested himself of all this interest in the land with the result that he ceased to be the tenant of the plaintiff and the other defendants who came into occupation were trespassers without any title. In this view of the matter, he prayed that a decree for ejectment might be made against defendants 1 to 11, the transferees, who, according to him, held possession wrongfully. The defendants filed two written statements, one on behalf of Mr. Fox and the other on behalf of the transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Sudan Das Vs. Purna Chandra Chowdhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.286
1. This is a second appeal against an order under Section 293 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the decree-holder purchasing at an execution sale has been ordered to pay the difference between the price obtained at a re-sale and the price offered by him at a previous sale, The facts are that after the decree the immovable property of the defendants was put up for sale and was sold to the decree-holder, who had obtained leave to bid for it. He offered Rs. 1,113 This was assented to at the auction and the sale was so far completed, but he did not pay the poundage fee. It thereupon became necessary to put up the property to sale again. This was done and the decree-holder purchased the property for the sum of Rs. 700. The question is whether the difference of price at the two sales was caused by reason of the purchaser's default. Under the terms of Section 293, it certainly seems to us that it was. The way in which it is contemplated by the law that the judgment-creditor will purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Sudan Saha Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Debendra Nath Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1908
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.200
1. There is nothing in the policy of the law or custom of the country to prevent the creation of an intermediate tenure between a putndar and a dur-puinidar. It is immaterial what name is given to it. The plaintiff sued in the character of an intermediate tenure-holder and he was merely an assignee of the rent. We do not see why a suit should not lie at his instance to recover rent from the dur-putnidar. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs, one gold mohur....
Tag this Judgment!Ajodhya Prosad Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Golam Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.529
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain lands, which had been leased to the defendants, by ejecting the defendants from the same.2. The plaintiffs' case was that the lands were their zerait lands, that they had been leased to defendants under a series of leases, and that the term of the last lease having expired, the defendants had no right to remain in possession and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession. 3. The defendants on the other hand denied the plaintiffs right to eject them from the lands alleging that they had acquired occupancy-rights in the lands by having been in possession for more than 12 years.4. It appears that the lands were originally jungle lands and that the same share which the plaintiffs had in the village in which these lands are, was originally mortgaged to the defendants. During the period of the mortgage the defendants reclaimed the lands in suit and cultivated them for about...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Pabna Vs. Jogendra NaraIn Raikut and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.332
1. These are appeals in proceedings under Act I of 1894, the Land Acquisition Act; but, unfortunately for the parties, the proceedings have been misconceived from the very beginning. The Collector made awards under Section 11 of the Act. The claimants were not satisfied with them and they evidently asked for references. The references would be under Section 18 of the Act, and in a proceeding for the ascertainment of compensation on a reference under Section 18, the claimant is to be regarded as the plaintiff and the Government as defendant. 'This' in the words of the learned Judges who decided the case of Ezra v. The Secretary of State for India in Council 30 C.36 at p.89 'is the invariable practice and the duty of the Collector in such cases is pointed out in clear terms in Rule 45 of the Board's rules.'2. A company or corporation for whose benefit any land may be acquired by the Collector is not a necessary party in the proceeding and there can be no doubt that no proceeding can prop...
Tag this Judgment!Panchkouri Ghosh Vs. Pran Gopal Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.70
Brett, J.1. Two points have been taken in support of this appeal. The first is that the lower appellate Court has erred in law in holding that the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 33 of Act XI of 1859, and the second is that the lower appellate Court has erred in law in not having taken up or decided the other point which was raised on the plaint, namely, whether the plaintiff's right was not affected by the sale on the ground that the sale had been brought about by fraud on the part of his co-sharer and that his co-sharer was the actual purchaser of the property in the benami of the ostensible purchaser.2. In support of the first point, it has been argued that Section 7 of the Indian Limitation Act, must be taken to apply to a case like the present in which the plaintiff was a minor at the time of the institution of the suit (and in fact is still a minor) because the same limitation is provided under Article 12 of the second Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Bansberia Municipality Vs. Karunamoy Ganguli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.944
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit by the Chairman of the Bansberia Municipality against the defendant to recover certain fees under an alleged license to carry on a brick-burning business. The Court of Small Causes has dismissed the suit on the ground that inasmuch as the Municipality has not complied with the provisions of Section 261 of Act III of 1884, B. C., he cannot recover, and we are now invited to say that that view is erroneous. 1 do not think it is: I think it is right. The plaintiff can only recover the fees if his Municipality complied with the provisions of Section 261 of the Act. In point of fact, they have not done so: the Commissioners have not fixed any local limits as they were bound to do, within which the business could be carried on nor have they granted any license: and, it is for the fees under a license that they are now suing. There is a third difficulty in their path, namely that it is not shown that the scale of fees was approved by the Commissioner of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›