Kolkata Court April 1908 Judgments
E.F. Sandys Vs. Upendra Chandra Sinha Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.547
1. This is an appeal against an order of the 25th February 1907 refusing to set aside an order of the 18th December 1905 under Section 108, C.P.C. It appears that on the 11th December 1905 it was ordered that a case should be taken up in which a preliminary decree for accounts had been made, and a Commissioner appointed to take accounts who made a report to the Court. It was ordered that the records which had been to the High Court having then come back the pleader should be informed that the 18th December next should be fixed for the hearing. It appears that 'this order was brought to the notice of the senior pleader for the defendant who signed it. The case came on for hearing on the 18th and was decreed ex parte in the plaintiff's favour. The question is, whether the notice to the pleader in this case was notice to the defendant. The pleader appeared in Court on the application under appeal and swore that he did not inform his client of the order, and that as far as he knew it was n...
Tag this Judgment!Laliteshwar Singh Vs. Maharaja Rameshwar Singh Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.331
1. The appellant was one of defendants in the suit under appeal. The plaintiff-respondent sued for recovery of the sum of Rs. 50,867-l-7 1/4 alleging that he was entitled to recover the sum from the defendants as rent, cesses, dak-cess and Nimaksar, payable to him with respect to a babuana property, i.e., certain mehals in pergana Padri which were at one time included within the Durbhanga Raj Estate. Maharaja Rudra Singh Bahadur made over by a Rajgi sanad of the year 1850, the Raj to his eldest son Maharaj Kumar Maheswar Singh Bahadur, afterwards, Maharaja Maheswar Singh Bahadur and he stated in that document that he had made a babuana grant of certain mehals in pergana Padri to his son Maharaj Kumar Guneswar Singh Bahadur. The instrument, if any creating the grant, is not on the record. The Rajgi sanad, however, contains a direction that the Maharaja for the time being would be entitled to realize the Government revenue of the mehals granted to the Babus, and that the Maharaja himself...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Das Sil Vs. Ananda Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.548
1. This case depends entirely on the sufficiency of a notice served by the landlord on a monthly tenant, the argument against its validity being that it is not sufficiently definite. The notice takes the form of a letter in which the landlord explains that he sees fit to increase the rent of the holding from Rs. 23 to 30. He asks the tenant to come to an agreement with him to pay the increased rent. Then he concludes by saying, otherwise I shall take steps to eject you at the expiration of this month and hence you consider this as 15 days' notice expiring with the end of this month.'2. It is argued that, since the tenant had the option of accepting the tenancy at the enhanced rent till the end of the month, the notice was alternative to another cause of action. We cannot, however, take this view of the case, considering that the landlord in order to make himself safe intended to terminate and did terminate the existing tenancy at the end of the month. This is the obvious construction o...
Tag this Judgment!Prankrishna Shaini and ors. Vs. Kunja Behari Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.61
1. The facts of this case are as follows: This appeal arises out of a rent suit. On appeal to the Court below the appeal was heard by the District Judge who decreed the appeal. But subsequently a review of judgment was applied for and the learned Judge set aside his former order allowing the appeal. Then, there was a second appeal to this Court, and this Court set aside the Judge's decree and directed the lower Court to re-hear the case, considering the weight which was to be attached to the fact that the co-sharer tenants had paid an increase of rent and finding what was the substantive evidence of which the jama wasil and collection papers were corroborative evidence. The case was originally tried by the District Judge. The District Judge on receipt of the remand order of this Court transferred this case to the Subordinate Judge who disposed of it accordingly.2. Now the plaintiffs, who are the appellants, have preferred this second appeal to this Court and the only point taken is tha...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Krishna Ghosh Vs. Ashutosh Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.519
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. One Nakur Chandra Ghosh acquired a plot of land with an old house on it which was pulled down and rebuilt with additions. He had three sons, Narain, Ram Narain and Debnarain: and they lived as a joint Hindu family governed by the Dayabhaga System of Law. All the sons are dead and they predeceased their father. It appears that Debnarain found the money to build a new house upon this plot of land in which apparently the family lived for sometime. The present defendants are the representatives of Debnarain. The father, Nakur Chundra Ghosh, by his Will devised the entire house which had been rebuilt by Debnarain, to the son of Ram Narain who is the plaintiff, and is now suing to eject the representatives of Debnarain. There seems to be some question whether the statement as to the effect of the Will by the lower appellate Court is quite accurate, or whether he only devised two rooms in the house: at any rate, the whole of the disputed property was devised. The plain...
Tag this Judgment!Nityananda Hazra and ors. Vs. Bakkeswar Ta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.399
1. This appeal is against a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Burdwan dated the 20th March 1906. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for joint khas possession with the defendants as owners of 9 annas odd gun da share in a tank. Some of the defendants assert that the disputed land was Chowkidari Chakran land and that such portion of it, as was not Chowkidari Chakran land, was leased, out by them to defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 who have been in occupation since a portion of the land in dispute silted up in the year 1308.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit. He has held, following the ruling in Madan Mohun v. Rajab Ali 28 C. 223 that the suit cannot proceed; and, secondly', that as the Chakran Commissioner has declared 1 1/2 bighas to be Chowkidari Chakran land and has resumed this area of land, the suit cannot proceed because the plaint does not contain any prayer for setting aside the order of the Commissioner.3. The plaintiffs appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Tokhi Sahu Vs. Tosi Munda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.689
1. These are four appeals against the decisions of the Judicial Commissioner of. Chota Nagpore who has disposed of the four suits out of which these appeals arise in one judgment, though he has dealt separately with each suit. The suits before him were numbered 60, 59, 57 and 58. The appeals before us are 1109, which relates to suit No. 60, 1206 which relates to suit No. 59, 1207 which relates to 57 and 1208 which relates to suit No. 58. We take up first, the appeal No. 1109 which relates to suit No. 60. We may mention that these suits have been brought by a person who is described by the Judicial Commissioner as a Bania, who has bought certain tenures under the provisions of Section 123 of Act I of 1879. The land in dispute had been settled and a record-of-rights regarding them has been drawn up and the plaintiff, the purchaser of the mouza has now brought these suits to have a declaration that the entries in the record-of-rights as regards the lands in dispute are incorrect. The firs...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ranajit Sinha Bahadur Vs. Basanta Kumar Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.81
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the zemindar defendant in an action for recovery of possession of land commenced against him by the plaintiff respondent. The plaintiff claims title to the disputed land under leases granted by one Chand Mandal who holds under a putni created in his favour so far back as 1853 by the predecessor-in-title of the appellant. The putni lease contained a reservation under which the reserved forest and the service lands of the guards of the forest existing of old' were excepted from the grant. The controversy between the parties raises the question, whether the lands in dispute fall within or without the reserved forests. The plaintiff asserts that the lands are outside the reserved forests and are included in the grant which is the foundation of his title. He further alleges that he and his predecessors have been in adverse possession of the disputed land as part of the grant for a time much longer than the statutory period and have consequently acquired a r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›