Kolkata Court March 1908 Judgments
Nabadip Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. Bhairab Chandra Dhar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.325
1. The plaintiffs in this case are talukdars and they are suing for khas possession of land formerly leased to defendants Nos. 17 to 20. The land was originally leased to these men in 1301 for 9 years. The defendants Nos. 1 to 5 who are the appellants now before us are under-lessees of these raiyats. In 1306 a rent decree was passed against the raiyats and the property was put up to sale. On this the present appellants paid the amount of the decree and thereupon became mortgagees by the operation of law under Section 171 of the Bengal Tenancy Act Subsequently in 1311 the raiyats surrendered their holding to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs accordingly brought the present suit in order to recover khas possession of the land against the present appellants. The position occupied by the appellants is pretty clear. They had the first charge on the land under Section 171(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of the money which they had paid. It is argued that under these circumstances th...
Tag this Judgment!Jalil and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.560
Woodroffe, J.1. In this case the Magistrate says that in his opinion the sureties appear to be unfit. This is a case of sureties for good behaviour.2. Section 122, Criminal Procedure Code, says that a Magistrate may refuse to accept any surety for good behaviour offered under this Chapter on the ground that, for reasons to be recorded by the Magistrate, such surety is an unfit person. The Magistrate, therefore, has to determine in each case whether a person offered as surety is a fit or unfit person and as regards this matter, the Legislature has given him a discretion. The Legislature has not particularised any kind of unfitness. It has left the matter to the discretions of the lower Court though this Court will in each case consider, according to its own circumstances, whether the order passed by the Magistrate is a reasonable order to make or not.3. In my opinion this is not a case in which we should interfere. It has however, been suggested that we are bound to do so by virtue of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bahadur Mian Vs. Saheb Ram Marwari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.171
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpore, dated the 6th June, 1907.2. The appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a promissory-note, said to have been executed by the defendant on the 20th September, 1902, in favour of Babu Saheb Ram and Lachmi Narayan Marwari. The suit on the basis of this note was first instituted by the plaintiff Saheb Ram alone and a decree was obtained ex parte against the defendant. On the application of the defendant the ex parte decree was set aside and the case restored. On the 27th January 1906 the defendant filed a written statement. He denied the genuineness of the promissory-note and urged that the suit was bad by reason of the non-joinder of Lachmi Narain the son of Saheb Ram as a party. Then Lachmi Narain was made a co-plaintiff on the 26th March 1906. After that the defendant contended that the suit by Lachmi Narain, having been brought more than 3 years after the date of the promissory-note, was barred by limi...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanan Das Majumdar Vs. Kunja Behari Malo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.438
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. This is an action upon a covenant contained in a pottah dated the 27th of June 1892. By that pottah one Umesh Chandra Ghosh, who admittedly was a benamidar for the principal defendant, defendant No. 1 Girish Chandra Dass,--and for the purposes of this argument Girish Chandra Dass has been treated as the covenantor and the person liable under the covenant,--took an ijara pottah, for a certain term, of certain land: and, the agreement between the lessor and the lessee was that the lessee was to pay to the superior landlords the rent which the plaintiffs were bound to pay to them under their contract with the superior landlords and to make certain other payments. The covenant was that out of the hastbud of Rs. 2,487 odd, the lessee was to have Rs. 100 every year to the end of the term for collection expenses; that out of the balance he was to pay the rent due to the Maliks, the amount being Rs. 1,234 annually; that he was also to pay the Road cess and Public Wor...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Buksh Ellahi Vs. Durlav Chandra Kar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.986
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiff. The action was brought to set aside the sale which had been held of certain premises at Dum Dum for arrears of revenue.2. A very large number of issues were raised in the case all of which were decided in favour of the defendant, excepting the one decided by the Judge in favour of the plaintiff, i.e., that no arrears were due.3. The sale was held on March 16th, 1903, and was expressed to be in respect of arrears due on June 28th, 1902.4. The holding was one on which revenue has been assessed at the time of the Permanent Settlement. In 1871, the Board of Revenue fixed the latest date by which rents of all descriptions of tenures should be paid and duly gave notice of the dates so fixed under the provisions of Section 3 of Act XI of 1859. The latest day fixed was June 28th. The tenant of the holding, the subject of the present sale gave, in 1874 On the18th February 1874-Rep a kabuliyat under wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›