Kolkata Court November 1908 Judgments
Karma Uraon Vs. Baraik Debi Dayal Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal115
Caspersz, J.1. In these second appeals by the defendants the substantial question raised is whether the plaintiff's suits to recover arrears of rent for the Sambat years 1960, 1961, 1962 should have been dismissed as being in contravention of the provisions of Section 44A of the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act, 1879. Section 44A, which was added by Bengal Act V of 1903, runs thus: 'Where a landlord has instituted a suit, or applied for a certificate under Section 155 against a raiyat or a Mundari Khunt-kattidar for the recovery of any rent of his tenancy, the landlord shall not institute another suit or apply for another such certificate against him for the recovery of any rent of that tenancy until after six months from the date of the institution or making of the previous suit or application.' 2. It appears that the plaintiff in March 1906 sued for the rents of 1959 to 1961, and alleged that some rent for 1962 had been deposited by the defendants. Issues were framed, a...
Tag this Judgment!Parasulla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.10
1. These were two rules issued, one upon the Sessions Judge of Khulna and one upon the District Magistrate of Khulna, to show cause why the judgment of the District Magistrate in appeal and the order of the Sessions Judge on reference should not be set aside and the appeal and, reference re-heard on the ground that the complicity of each of the accused individually has not been separately considered and also on the ground that the evidence for the defence has not been similarly considered.2. Taking the reference order of the Sessions Judge first, as it is the more important, we find that the Judge has directed his attention to the joint conduct of the father and the three sons, who, he holds, were habitually associated together for the purpose of committing theft and burglaries and in the habit of wreaking vengeance by looting the paddy of their enemies and also hiring themselves to zemindars and others for the purpose of coercing tenants and intimidating people. There are other allega...
Tag this Judgment!Sheonandan Persad Sukul Vs. Bacha Raut
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.54
1. The only question which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the learned. Judge is right in the view which he has taken as to the effect of the presumption raised in favour of an entry in the record-of-rights under Section 103(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act as amended. The view which the learned Judge has taken is as follows: He holds that because there is a presumption under the law of the correctness of the entry in the record-of-rights and because that presumption must be accepted by the Court until it is rebutted, therefore, it is open to a person seeking to rebut the correctness in the entry, to produce evidence of facts subsequent to the publication of the record-of-rights but not to rely on documentary or oral evidence of facts anterior to the publication. This view of the law is, in our opinion, entirely wrong.2. The question which arises is whether the entry was correct at the time when it was made, and in order to prove the correctness at that time, evidence of a...
Tag this Judgment!Amjad Ali and ors. Vs. Kaderjan Bibbe and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.518
1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff for possession of a plot of land which he claims as an accretion to his jote. The accretion is not denied, and it is found that at the time of the suit the plaintiff was an occupancy tenant. At the time of the accretion, however, he was a non-occupancy tenant, and the question before us is whether Regulation XI of 1825, Section 4 applies to the case.2. The appellant relies on the decisions in Zukheeroddin Paikar v. Campbell 4 W.R. Cr. R. 57 and Beni Pershad Koeri v. Chaturi Tewary 33 C. 444; 4 C.L.J. 63 to show that it does not. The former case referred to a tenant from year to year and it was held that he was not entitled to the benefit of the section. In the latter a fresh agreement for a year's tenancy was actually made every year, so that the tenant never had any interest in the land beyond the end of the current year. Neither of these cases, therefore, touch the case of a non-occupancy tenant.3. On the other hand, the decisions in the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Karma Uraon and ors. Vs. Buraik Debi Doyal Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.447
Caspersz, J.1. In these second appeals by the defendants the substantial question raised is whether the plaintiff's suits to recover arrears of rent for the Sambat years 1960, 1961, 1962 should have been dismissed as being in contravention of the provisions of Section 44 A. of the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act, 1879. Section 44 A, which was added by Bengal Act V of 1903, runs thus: 'Where a landlord has instituted a suit, or applied for certificate under Section 155, against a raiyat or a Mundari khunt-kattidar, for the recovery of any rent of his tenancy, the landlord shall not institute another suit or apply for another such certificate against him for the recovery of any rent of that tenancy until after six months from the date of the institution or making of the previous suit or application.'2. It appears that the plaintiff, in March 1906, sued for the rents of 1959 to 1961, and alleged that some rent for 1962 had been deposited by the defendants. Issues were frame...
Tag this Judgment!BepIn Behary Shaha Vs. Mokunda Lal Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal122
Caspersz and Coxe, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a composite suit, in which the plaintiff sued to enforce his mortgage on certain property by sale, as, also, to redeem certain prior encumbrances. The suit was decreed and the plaintiff was directed to deposit the amount due with respect to the prior encumbrances within six months, and it was ordered that, if he did not do so, he should not be able to redeem. The decree was dated the 31st May 1906. An appeal was lodged by the defendants or some of them, but it was dismissed on some date, which does not appear on the papers and on the 16th April 1907, the plaintiff deposited the money, and asked that the property covered by the mortgage might be sold free of encumbrances, the prior mortgages having been redeemed by the deposit of the money due upon them. The pleader of one of the prior encumbrancers (not the present appellant) was sent for, but declined to appear, and the application was granted on the 14th May 1907.2. Thereafter the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Mohendra Nath Ghosh and ors. Vs. Jadu Nath Mullik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.684
1. The question raised before us in second appeal is whether the plaintiffs' suit for accounts against the defendant, who was a gomasta, has been properly dismissed under the provisions of article 89, Schedule II, of the Indian Limitation Act so far as the suit concerned the defendant's agency in the life-time of the plaintiffs' father.2. The first Court gave the plaintiffs a full decree; but on appeal to the District Judge, the latter has applied the provisions of article 89 and dismissed the suit to that extent, reckoning the period of three years mentioned in the article as having commenced to run from the date of the death of the plaintiffs' father, which happened in the year 1308 B. S., that is to say, more than three years before the institution of this suit in the year 1905.3. It is urged by the learned Vakil for the plaintiffs-appellants that article 120, and not article 89, is applicable.4. We, however, entertain no manner of doubt that article 89 is the appropriate article, a...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Kumar Nandi Vs. Umedar Raja Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.692
1. The claim in this case relates to a twelfth share of certain immovable properties described in the schedules to the plaint. They were at one time owned by three brothers Kasi Nath, Biswa Nath and Jagannath. Kasi Nath's one-third share devolved on his son the defendant No. 13. Biswa Nath died sonless in the year 1874 and his one-third share devolved on his widow Vishnupriya, who died in the year 1902. Biswa Nath. left him surviving a married daughter Joytara, but she was sonless and became a widowin the life-time of Vishnupriya. Jagannath also died while Vishnupriya was alive. The plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 14 and 15 are sons of Jagannath, and under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, the plaintiff and these defendants as well as defendant No. 13 are equally entitled to the share of Biswa Nath. The plaintiff is thus entitled to a twelfth share.2. The contesting defendants are the purchasers of the share of Biswa Nath from Vishnupriya and they have set up three deeds of transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Maity Vs. Chowdhury Krishna Chandra Das Paharaj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.63
1. This an appeal by the defendant who is a putnidar under the plaintiff-respondent.2. On a previous occasion, the putni was sold under the provisions of Regulation VIII of 1819 at the instance of the plaintiff landlord who purchased it in 1900. That sale was, however, set aside in May 1901 at the suit of the defendant. Thereafter according to the findings arrived at in the lower Courts, the plaintiff served notices on the defendant in December 1901 and March 1903 binding him to resume possession of the putni taluk.3. It is urged on behalf of the defendant that he did not resume possession, and that the mere fact that the plaintiff served certain notices on him to resume possession does not entitle the plaintiff to recover the rent for the years in suit, namely, 1309, to Chait 1312. It is said that the lower appellate Court should have recorded a finding as to whether the defendant had, as a matter of fact, resumed possession of the taluk. In the next place, it is urged that the Distri...
Tag this Judgment!BepIn Behary Shaha Vs. Mokanda Lal Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.780
1. This appeal arises out of a composite suit, in which the plaintiff sued to enforce his mortgage on certain property by sale, as, also, to redeem certain prior encumbrances. The suit was decreed and the plaintiff was directed to deposit the amount due with respect to the prior encumbrances within six months, and it was ordered that, if he did not do so, he should not be able to redeem. The decree was dated the 31st May 1906. An appeal was lodged by the defendants or some of them, but it was dismissed on some date, which does not appear on the papers and on the 16th April 1907, the plaintiff deposited the money, and asked that the property covered by the mortgage might be sold free of encumbrances, the prior mortgages having been redeemed by the deposit of the money due upon them. The pleader of one of the prior encumbrancers (not the present appellant) was sent for, but declined to appear, and the application was granted on the 14th May 1907.2. Thereafter the plaintiff applied to hav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »