Kolkata Court June 1908 Judgments
Dibakar Bisi Vs. Chatto Bag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1908
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.672
Doss, J.1. This a appeal is from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur in a suit by the plaintiff to recover arrears of rent for the years 1960, 1961 and 1962 Sambut, and for possession of a holding.2. The plaintiff's case is that he is the occupancy-tenant under the lambardar, that the defendant is his sub-tenant, that the defendant has defaulted in paying rent for the last six years, that he occupied the holding on condition that he would surrender it whenever the plaintiff demanded it back from him, and that he had forfeited his tenancy by denying the title of the plaintiff. Upon these grounds he claimed arrears of rent for three years, the rents for the previous three years having become barred by limitation; and he has also claimed possession of the holding.3. The defendant's case is that the plaintiff is not an occupancy-tenant under the lambardar but that he himself is the occupancy-tenant under the same lambardar and that at the last settlement of the revenue his nam...
Tag this Judgment!Peary Mohun Roy Vs. Khelaram Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.157
1. The plaintiff was the owner of a putni mehal under the Maharaja of Burdwan. The mehal was sold under Reg. VIII of 1819 for arrears of rent for the year 1306 and was purchased by the first defendant. The sale took place on the 18th May 1900. After wards, the first defendant transferred the property to the second defendant, his wife. The plaintiff instituted a suit (No. 64 of 1900) for setting aside the putni sale and obtained a decree for possession on the 27th February 1901. He took possession on the 11th September 1901. During the period between the 18th May 1900 and the 11th September 1901, the defendants, or either of them, were in possession of the putni property. The plaintiff instituted the present suit for mesne profits for the period that the defendants were in possession, namely, from 18th May 1900 to 11th September 1901.2. It is admitted that the claim for the amount, if any, recovered by the defendants or either of them within three years of 6th April 1904 (the date of th...
Tag this Judgment!Asharam Sadhani and ors. Vs. Chandi Churn Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.549
1. We do not think we should, under the rules governing second appeals, interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the lower appellate Court in these cases, although we might wish to maintain. possession which has existed from the year 1871 and although the present defendants are in one sense bona fide purchasers for value. Bat they claim title under, amongst others, an instrument dated the 14th January 1871 in which three of the parties were Hindu females, Mayabati, Nitya Kali and Durga Mani and they ought to have been cautious in making purchases.2. The plaintiff is admittedly one of the next takers after the death of Durga Mani of the estate left by her son Ashutosh. He is, on the findings arrived at by the lower Courts, not barred by any rule as to the limitation of suits. The only question is--Is he bound by the terms of the instrument of the 14th January 18713. Two contentions have been raised before us. The first is that Mati Sundari, the daughter of Durga Mani, had no s...
Tag this Judgment!Sobha Ram Dass Vs. Moheshwar Sarma and Ganga Priya Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.327
Coxe, J.1. The plaintiff in this case obtained a decree against defendant No. 2 and in execution of that decree he brought her property to sale. Defendant No. 2 then entered into an agreement with defendant No. 1 that the latter should make a deposit of Rs. 1,050 in her name in order that the sale might be set aside under Section 310-A of the Civil Procedure Code, and it was further agreed that if the sale was set aside, defendant No. 2 should sell the property to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 accordingly made this deposit himself in the name of defendant No. 2.2. The application to set aside the sale was granted and the sale was set aside on the 22nd January 1901. Thereafter defendant No. 2 executed a conveyance of most of the land in favour of defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 900 but this transaction came to nothing because in some way which is not clearly explained the decree-holder appealed against the order passed on the application under Section 310-A of the Code of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Nath Mukerji and ors. Vs. Bejoy Gopal Mukerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.513
1. The suit giving rise to this and the connected appeals was brought by four out of the seven reversionary heirs of one Chandra Bhusan Mookerjee who died in the year 1832. The plaintiffs sought to recover khas possession of a 4/7th share of certain properties, and prayed for a declaration that an ijara, dated the 23rd Bhadra 1270 (7th September 1863), granted for a term of sixty years by Sayamani Debi--the widow of Chandra Bhusan Mukerji, and the dur-ijaras, and se-ijaras, derivatively created thereunder had become inoperative since the death of Sayamani Debi. The plaintiffs allege that all these transactions are not binding on them.2. The ijara was granted by Sayamani Debi to Annada Pershad Mookerjee--the father of the plaintiffs, and to Sarada Pershad Mookerjee, the son of the brother (Gouri Pershad) of Annada Pershad. The genealogical tree (at page 10 of the paper-book in appeal No. 71 of 1896) is not disputed. The history of the litigation between the members of the family goes ba...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. Upendra Chandra Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal604
R.F. Rampini C.J. and Ryves, J.1. The two second appeals, No. 2388 and 2466, of 1906 are appeals against a decision of the District Judge of Murshidabad in suits for arrears of rent. The defendant is sued on the basis of two kabuliats executed by him in favour of the plaintiff on the 18th October 1894, which he now repudiates on the grounds (i) that they were obtained from him by oppression and threats, and(ii) that they are illegal, being contrary to the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. Both the lower Courts have found that the kabuliats were not extorted from the defendant by oppression or threats, but were executed voluntarily by him. But the lower Appellate Court has held that the kabuliats are void, being contrary to the provisions of Section 29 of Act VIII of 1885. It has been further held that the fact that the defendant has paid rent at the rate mentioned in the kabuliats for some time is immaterial, and that a decree which the plaintiff obtained against th...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. Upendra Chandra Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.828
1. The two second appeals, Nos. 2388 and 2466 of 1906 are appeals against a decision of the District Judge of Murshidabad in suits for arrears of rent. The defendant is sued on the basis of two kabuliats executed by him in favour of the plaintiff on the 18th October 1894, which he now repudiates on the grounds (i) that they were obtained from him by oppression and threats, and (it) that they are illegal, being contrary to the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. Both the lower Courts have found that the kabuliats were not extorted from the defendant by oppression or threats, but were executed voluntarily by him. But the lower appellate Court has held that the kabuliats are void, being contrary to the provisions of Section 29 of Act VIII of 1885. It has been further held that the fact that the defendant has paid rent at the rate mentioned in the kabuliats for some time is immaterial, and that a decree which the plaintiff obtained against the defendant for the rent, whic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›