Kolkata Court April 1909 Judgments
Sheikh Bechu Vs. Sheikh Solim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.417
1. The facts of this case appear from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and we need not repeat them. It appears that the defendant is an under-raiyat of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant for some arrears bhag paddy in 1904, when the defendant denied the plaintiff's title. The plaintiff withdraw that suit and brought the present suit for khas possession of the land and for mesne profits. The learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the plaintiff's suit and the defendant has appealed to this Court. Under the Transfer of Property Act a denial of the landlord's title would pat an end to the tenancy, bat that is not the case under the Bengal Tenancy Act and it has been held by this Court in the case of Dhora Kairi v. Ram Jewan Kairi Mahton 20 C. 101 that in such a case the denial of title does not create a forfeiture and that the under-raiyat cannot be evicted from his holding except after notice to quit as prescribed by Section 49, Clause (b), of the Bengal Tenancy A...
Tag this Judgment!Annada Prosad Mukhopadhya Vs. Mathura Lal Nag Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.123
Chitty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a rent suit. The plaintiff sues to recover Rs. 2,790-3-15 as rent with cesses and interest for the years 1306 to 1309 under a pattah and kabuliat dated 2nd Joisto 1302 and executed by himself and the defendant respectively. The land leased to the defendant is described as Pargana Rangdia, a mehal bearing Towzi No. 163 in the District of Khulna, constituting a patni taluk, of which the plaintiff claims to hold exclusive possession.2. By the pattah the land was estimated at about 800 bighas, 150 of which were regarded as garlaik or unfit for cultivation. For 68 bighas 17 Cottahs 8 chittaks the defendant agreed to pay from the outset the full rent of Re. 1 per bigha and road cesses at 1/2 anna in the rupee. The balance of 581 bighas 2 cottahs 8 chittaks he was to hold rent free from 1302 to 1304, and from 1305 he was to pay a progressive rent upon it commencing at 4 anns per bigha and culminating from 1308 in the full rent of Re. 1 per bigha. The 650...
Tag this Judgment!Nilmoney Sinha Vs. Hardhan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.111
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in an action for enforcement of a mortgage security executed by him in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on the 17th September 1893. The mortgage bond recited that the mortgagor borrowed Rs. 100 and covenanted to give five maps and six shaleys of good paddy as interest in the month of Pous every year. He further agreed that if there was default in payment of paddy in the shape of interest he would pay 3 shaleys of paddy as interest per map per annum. There was also a covenant that the principal amount would be repaid on the 12th April 1894. The deed recited that certain properties were mortgaged to secure payment of the principal, interest in kind, as well as interest on such interest. The first instalment of interest fell due in Pous 1300, that is, on the 12th January 1894. The substantial points in controversy between the parties are three in number: (1) whether the claim for interest which accrued more than six years befo...
Tag this Judgment!Loke Nath Sahu Vs. Achutananda Dass and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.85
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on be half of the plaintiff in an action for recovery of possession of immovable property. The plaintiff claims title from the husband of the second defendant who was the admitted owner of the disputed property, and bases his title on a mortgage bond executed in his favour on the 13th February 1895. He obtained a decree on this mortgage on the 6th January 1901, and purchased the property at the execution sale on the 15th July 1903. The first defendant founds his title on a mortgage executed in his favour on the 19th February 1889. He obtained a decree on the 13th August 1892, which was subsequently made absolute on the 13th July 1901. He purchased at the execution sale on the 15th November 1901 and was placed in possession by the Court on the 6th June 1902. In the Courts below each side impeached the validity and reality of the mortgage which was the root of the title of the other, but it has been concurrently found that the mortgages represented genui...
Tag this Judgment!Sital Chandra Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Sheikh AfiluddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.20
1. This is a second appeal in a suit by a co-sharer landlord for his share of the produce rent. The plaintiff has made his co-sharers parties defendants in the suit and has prayed in the alternative that, if it be found that separate collection has not been proved, a decree may be passed for the whole amount. The learned District Judge has found that no case of separate collection has been made out and has dismissed the plaintiff's suit in toto. A preliminary objection has been raised in this Court that no second appeal lies. There is a conflict of rulings on this point and the Judges of this Court have been by no means unanimous. In the case of Jogendra Nath Ghose v. Paban Chandra Ghose 8 C.W.N. 472 the late Chief Justice sitting with Mr. Justice Pargiter held that an appeal did lie on the ground that a suit for rent by a co-sharer landlord was not a suit under the Bengal Tenancy Act and,therefore,the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act did not apply. The question was ...
Tag this Judgment!iswar Chandra Das Sarkar and on His Death Kripamoyi Dasya and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.807
1. These are cross-appeals arising out of suit No. 678 of 1904 in the Court of the Munsif at Faridpore. The plaintiffs claimed a declaration of their jote right to the lands in suit, khas possession, mesne profits and costs. The lands consisted of 14 plots alleged by plaintiffs to form three separate jotes, the first jote comprising plots 1--9, the 2nd plots 10--13 and the 3rd plot 14. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the landlords. Defendants Nos. 3--11 are sued as trespassers alleged to have possessed the plaintiffs in collusion with the landlords. The remaining defendants are tenants under the plaintiffs.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit in Mo. The lower appellate Court upheld that decision as regards the 2nd and 3rd jotes. As regards the 1st jote the lower appellate Court has given plaintiffs a decree for plots 1-5 and 8 and dismissed the suit as to plots 6, 7 and 9.3. The plaintiffs have appealed only as regards plots 6, 7 and 9.4. The defendants Nos. 1 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshwar Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.28
1. Parmeswar Lal was tried by a Deputy Magistrate of Howrah on charges of offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges ran as follows: first: That you, on or about the 21st day of September 1908, at Calcutta, being a servant of Seumukh Rai and Lachhiram, and as such, entrusted with two refund cheques, one for Rs. 89 and the other for Rs. 64-9 by the firm on 20th idem, cashed the same at Howrah and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of (the) total sum of Rs. 153-9-0, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code.' [This charge was subsequently amended by the addition of the words 'on the 26th September' immediately after the figures Rs. 153-9]; and, secondly: That you on or about the 26th day of September 1908, at Howrah, having assured delivery clerk, Debendra Nath Mukherjee, that you would immediately pay the freight of 185 bags of mustard seed covered by railway receipt No. 94922 of the 9th Se...
Tag this Judgment!Solimunnisa and anr. Vs. Shaikh Jonab Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.808
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action for recovery of money due upon an instalment mortgage bond executed in their favour on the 2nd December 1892, by persons now represented by the defendants respondents. On that date the mortgagors took a loan of Rs. 400 and by the bond agreed to repay Rs. 800 in eight instalments of Rs. 100 each. The first instalment was payable on the 11th February 1894 and the latter instalments on the corresponding date of subsequent years down to 1901. The mortgage bond contained a stipulation that, if default was made in payment of an instalment, all the instalments would forthwith become due and recoverable with compound interest at 36 per cent per annum. On the 11th September 1900 the mortgagees commenced an action to recover Rs. 3,522 upon the bond on the allegation that default had been made in payment of the instalment due for 1895 and they had become entitled to recover all the instalments with compound interest. The C...
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Alias Dhalu Ghose Vs. Benode Lal Roy Choudhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.59
1. Thos appeal arises out of one of three suits brought against defendant No. 1, Jogesh Chandra Ghosh, in his personal capacity and as representative of his deceased father Jahnabi Charan Ghosh for an account and other relief. The other two suits have been compromised. The facts so far as it is necessary to state them are as follows:Jahnabi Charan Ghosh was appointed by the original plaintiffs in this suit, Benode Lal Roy Chowdhuri and his two brothers as tehsildar and naib of their properties. By a registered qabuliyat, dated 4th Bhadra 1298, he hypothecated to them certain properties therein specified as security for his appointment. He further agreed to prepare monthly statements month by month, and nikash (accounts), and jama washil amdani, talab baki, counter-foil receipts, &c;, loazima papers relating to mofussil affairs year by year at the end of each year according to the form in vogue in. plaintiffs' sherista and furnish the same to them and take receipts for the same. If he f...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Saltant-ara Munni Begum Vs. Seth Dooli Chand
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.266
1. This is an appeal from on order of the Subordinate Judge of 24 Per-gunnahs, granting a temporary injunction against the defendant. By agreement dated the 27th May 1907, the defendant agreed to execute a lease in favour of the plaintiff of certain lands. That contract, according to the defendant was to be performed by the 30th September 1907, and by a letter of the 1st October 1907, the defendant's solicitors wrote to the plaintiff to the effect that plaintiff not having carried out his agreement, the contract was cancelled. On the 28th November 1907, the plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of that agreement and it is in that suit that ho has applied for and has been granted the injunction in question.2. The facts, so far we need go into them, appear to be as follows: By the agreement, the plaintiff was to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000, but to the defendant for the purpose of having the lands cleared of certain tenants. Subsequently, some difficulties presumably having arisen ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »