Kolkata Court May 1909 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Preobarat NaraIn Singh Vs. Murat Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.263
1. This second appeal arises out of an application by the landlords under Clause (2) of Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the settlement of fair rent in respect of certain land, described in an entry in a recent record of rights as kabil lagan. A fair rent was accordingly settled by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The defendants (the tenants) appealed to the learned Special Judge who allowed the appeal and dismissed the application holding apparently that it had not been shown by the plaintiffs that their claim to assess the land to rent had been made within the period permitted by the general law of limitation. His finding in other words is that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a title to support their demand for rent.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the present appeal that no second appeal lies under Section 109 A, Clause (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In our opinion, the decision of the learned Special Judge is not a decision settling a rent. This objection, ...
Beni Madhab Christian and ors. Vs. Raj Chandra Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.202
1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration of their jamai right to certain land, and for possession thereof jointly with defendant No. 11. Both the lower Courts have given the plaintiffs a decree for two-thirds of the land in suit. The legal representative of defendant No. 1, who died since the suit was filed, and defendant No. 6 have preferred this appeal. So far as the appellants are concerned it has been found that they never had any title to the land in dispute and that they were never in possession, until they dispossessed the plaintiffs as now complained of. They must, therefore, be regarded as trespassers. The plaintiffs claimed as sublessees of one Mohim Chadra Mandal, who held the land from the Malik Nobin Chandra Singh Roy under a kabuliat dated 3rd Sarban 1293 (1886). By a registered pattah dated 12th Sarban 1301 (1894) Mohim Chandra Mandal sub-let to the plaintiffs in perpetuity at an annual rent of Rs. 76. The only point that has been urged before us on this appeal is that t...
Durga Tewari and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal758,3Ind.Cas.189
Caspersz and Ryves, JJ.1. This is a Rule on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentences of the petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the property contemplated in Section 406 is moveable property, and the property entrusted to the petitioners was standing crops; on the authority of the case of Jugdown Sinha v. Queen-Empress (1895) I.L.R. 23 Calc. 372, and also why the sentences should not be reduced.2. It has been found by both Courts that 18 bighas of land on which was then standing a crop of paddy were entrusted to the petitioners to take care of and watch until the paddy was ripe when they were to give notice to the factory people who would cut it. When the paddy was ripe the petitioners themselves cut the crops and disposed of the same. On these findings both the Courts concurred in convicting the petitioners under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.3. In this Court it has been contended that, inasmuch as the property was standing crops ...
GossaIn Ramdhan Puri Raj Kumar Thakur and Two ors. Vs. GossaIn Dalmir ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.385
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal, is the estate of Manraj Puri, a Dasnami Gossain of the monastery of Budhauli in the District of Gya, who died on the 16th June 1897, possessed of considerable movable and immovable properties. Immediately upon his death, disputes broke out as to the right of succession to these. The defendant, who is the head of the monastery at Budhauli, took possession of all the properties left by Manraj, while one Hetlal Puri, as well as the plain tiff Ramdhan Puri, set up a claim to the properties as chelas entitled to succeed by law and custom. The first stage of the struggle for possession of the properties was represented by a criminal case under Section 107, Cr. P. C., which was instituted by a petition presented on the 16th July, 1897. On the 2nd August 1897, the Sub-divisional Magistrate delivered judgment with the result that he discharged the respondent Dalmir Puri and made the rule absolute against Hetlal Puri di...
Sarat Chandra Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. RatubuddIn Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1909
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.227
1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises are the grandsons of one Imamdi. It is common ground, proved by the patta produced on behalf of the plaintiffs (Exhibit 7) and the kabuliat filed for the defence (Exhibit A), that Imamdi had a tenancy with a rent of Rs. 58 under the landlords whose successors are the principal defendants in the case. Imamdi had two sons, named Yar Mahomed and Gulal, the plaintiffs being the sons of the latter and the pro forma defendants the sons of the former. The landlords, on the strength of the kabuliat above referred to, which was executed by Yar Mahomad alone in 1867, sued to eject the heirs of Yar Mohamad on the ground that their tenancy had come to an end. The decree does not show whether this was because its term had expired or because Yar Mohamad being dead, the tenancy was not heritable. We may, however, take this opportunity of observing that the kabuliat of 1867 was for a term of nine years and that Yar Mohamad and his heirs app...
Jadu Singh and ors. Vs. Butan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.207
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiffs apparently performed the talab-i-mowasibat in the presence of witnesses. They took these witnesses to the vendor and there performed the taldb-i-istishad. The Munsif gave them a partial decree, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge of Muzafferpore held that the performance of the talab-i-istiatiad was not in accordance with the strict provisions of the Muhammadan Law and accordingly decreed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The defect which the learned Subordinate Judge found in the performance of the talab-i-istishad he thus describes : 'While performing the talab-i-istishad the plaintiff was bound to declare that he had observed the talab-i-mowitsibat and then invoke the witnesses. But he did not say that he had made this declaration that he had observed the talab-t-mowasibat.' The Subordinate Judge following the case of Rujub Ali Chopedar v. Chundi Churn Bhadra 17 C. 513 (F.B.) hold that the omission of any mention o...
Ulfat HossaIn Vs. Gayani Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal802
Stephen and Vincent, JJ.1. This is a suit brought for a declaration that the plaintiff as purchaser at a Government Revenue Sale is the proprietor of a 2 annas 5 gundas and odd share in a certain mouza and for possession thereof.2. The facts, as far as they are material to the questions we have to decide, are as follows. The share in question originally belonged to one Musammat Razihan. In 1875, she created a molcarari of which her daughter Musammat Fazilan was tenant for life with a remainder to her son Waizuddin. In 1878, she transferred the proprietary interest to Musammat Fazilan. In 1884, Fazilan and Waizuddin mortgaged the share to Rai Radha Kissen Bahadur. In 1892, Mohanth Gayani Dass, the present defendant-respondent, purchased the interest of Waizuddin, that is his, equity of redemption in the molcarari. On the 15th of April 1899, Rai Radha Kissen got a decree absolute in a mortgage suit in which Waizuddin, Fazilan, and Gayani Dass, among others, were defendants, and became pu...
Emperor Vs. Abdus Sobhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal643
Caspeesz and Ryves, JJ.1. This is an application for the review of an order of a first class Magistrate, dated the 30th March 1909. We are informed that no application on the subject has been made to the Sessions Judge of Cuttack with a view to his referring any error on a point of law for final determination by this Court. The practice which ought to be followed in such cases is that indicated in the case of the Queen-Empress v. Reolah(1887) I.L.R. 14 Calc. 887, where it was laid down that the High Court will not entertain an application for revision in cases where the District Court or Magistrate has concurrent revisional jurisdiction with the High Court, says on some special ground shown, unless a previous application shall have been made to the lower Court: but in cases in which concurrent jurisdiction is not possessed by the lower Courts, no such general rule exists.' That was a decision arrived at after consultation with the Chief Justice and the other Judges of this Court on the...
Sarat Chandra Banerjee Vs. Nani Mohan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal799,3Ind.Cas.995
Harington, J.1. This is an application by the widow of one Sarat Chandra Banerjee that her husband's death may be recorded, and her name may be substituted for his, and that the petition for probate may be amended by substituting a prayer for letters of administration to the will annexed instead of a prayer for probate.2. The facts, are that Annapurna Debi died in 1908 leaving a will. Sarat Chandra Banerjee applied for probate, but was met by Nani Mohan Banerjee who entered a caveat.3. The matter was ordered to be set down as a contentious cause. Pending the hearing Sarat Chandra Banerjee, who was residuary legatee as well as executor under the will, died. The present application is made by his sole widow and heiress.4. In my opinion the application must be refused because the right to sue does not survive. The right, which Sarat Chandra Banerjee had, was to propound the will. On the Court's granting probate, he would be entitled not by virtue of the order of the Court but by the appoi...
Jadab Gobinda Singh Vs. Anath Bandhu Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal171
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. The defendants in this case were originally tenants jointly under the plaintiff and his co-sharers. The plaintiff and his co-sharers partitioned their property, and the result was that some portions of the holdings of the various tenants fell into the plaintiff's share and others into the shares of his co-sharers. The plaintiff accordingly sued for apportionment of the rent. The Munsif gave him a modified decree. But on appeal to the District Judge, he noted that it was admitted on behalf of the plaintiff that all the co-sharer proprietors, and also some other persons who were interested in the land, had not been made parties. He, therefore, remitted the suits to the Munsif, with a direction to make these persons parties and to take certain other action.2. Two of the defendants have appealed to this Court, and it is argued on their behalf that this order of remand was illegal under Section 564 of the old Code. It may be conceded that the Munsif did not dispos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »