Kolkata Court June 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.
Ramanath Hudati Vs. Jote Kumar Mukherji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.660
1. This is a suit for rent at the rate of Rs. 22-2-6, and by way of defence to this claim it was pleaded that the rent was only Rs. 7-1-9. It was ultimately admitted by the plaintiff that the original rent was Rs. 7-1-9, but it was claimed that it had been enhanced, and rightly enhanced, to the figure at which it is now sought to be recovered.2. The only point that arises on appeal is whether the provision contained in Section 29, Clause (b), road with the second proviso of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not afford a complete answer to the plaintiff's claim.; It is contended that it does, and that, therefore, the decree of the District Judge is erroneous. Reading Clause (b) with the second proviso,: it is evident that a landlord to entitle himself to recover more than the rate indicated in Clause (b) must establish the conditions set forth in the second proviso, that is. to say, when, the enhancement is on the ground of improvement it is incumbent on him to show, that the improvement has ...
Chhatu Kurmi Vs. Rajaram Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.374
Coxe and Doss, JJ.1. This appeal raises the somewhat difficult question as to the rule of succession relating to property left by a degraded Hindu woman.2. One Budhia Kurmini, a degraded woman, died on the 17th April 1907. On the 9th May following, Rajaram Tewary, the respondent, applied for grant of probate of a will, dated the 15th April, 1907, said to have been executed by Budhia Kurmini, appointing him executor and bequeathing all her properties to his son.3. The application was opposed by the appellant, Chhatoo Kurmi, son of the sister of the testatrix's deceased husband, on the ground that the will was a forgery, and he prayed for grant of Letters of Administration to himself on the ground that under the Hindu Law he was the heir of the deceased and entitled to succeed to the properties left by her, which were her stridhan.4. The application was also opposed by the Collector of Hooghly on behalf of the Secretary of State for India.5. In course of the trial the learned District Ju...
Maharaja Ravaneswar Prasad Singh Vs. Baij Nath Ram Goenka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.401
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from a decree of this Court reversing the decree of the Court of first instance.2. Three objections have been taken against the grant of a certificate. The first is that the application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council is out of time. It is contended that the Court should not be treated as closed for the vacation of 1907, but the Court has always been treated as closed during the autumn vacation and authorities have been cited to us in which this point has been decided Rani Venkata v. Kherode Mull 10 C.L.J. 118 : 3 Ind. 400. The notification issued always is to the effect that the Court is closed though the office is open during part of the vacation.3. The next point is, that the applicant has not brought on the record of this appeal all the necessary parties. The objection is met by the applicant who says he has been unable to serve the representatives of a deceased opposite party to the suit, and it ...
Gouri Sankar Datta Mozumdar Vs. Minnat Ali Chowdhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.636
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiff's case is that the ancestor of the defendants executed registered kabuliats in his favour. We are informed that these kabuliats were for terms of three years. It is recited in the plaint that on the strength of these kabuliats and at the rate of rent paid from before, the defendants' ancestor and afterwards the defendants themselves paid the said rent and owned and held possession of the land. The suit has been decreed at the rate admitted by the defendants and the plaintiff appeals.2. The only point of law that arises in appeal is whether the District Judge is right in holding that under Section 91 of the Evidence Act the plaintiff is not entitled to adduce any other evidence than the kabuliats inasmuch as he suppressed the kabuliat in the trial before the Court of first instance. In our opinion, the view of the learned District Judge is erroneous. The collection papers which have been excluded were not put in proof of the te...
Kanu Ram Deb and anr. Vs. Kashi Chandra Sarma Chowdhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.660a
1. The property in suit in this case was alleged to be in the possession of one Alaka Dasi, who held a Hindu daughter's estate in it. She sold half of the property to the then reversioner Krishna Charan Deb, and we are told that on the same day he executed an instrument in her favour which had the effect of giving her an absolute interest in the other half of the property. So the result of the two transactions was that she obtained an absolute interest in the one-half and Krishna Charan obtained an absolute interest in the other half of the property. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 claim partly, as purchasers from the heirs of Krishna Charan Deb plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5, and partly as purchasers from defendant No. 3, the heir of Alaka Dasi. The defendants are purchasers from Alaka Dasi of a portion of the property in which she is said to have obtained an absolute interest by the deed of alienation executed in her favour by Krishna Charan Deb. The Courts below gave the plaintiffs, who sued f...
Bhutnath Naskar and anr. Vs. Monmotho Nath Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.675
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. I agree that these appeals should be dismissed, and I do so on the ground that the interest of the defendant was a tenure, and, therefore, not a protected interest ' within the meaning of Section 160 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This is in accord with the interpretation placed on a lease, not fairly distinguishable from the pre- sent, by Mr. Justice Mitra whose decision was affirmed on appeal under the Letters Patent. The District Judge refers to this decision of Mr. Justice Mitra but was evidently misled by the omission of a not' before the words 'raiyats holding'--an omission shown by a perusal of Mr. Justice Mitra's judgment to be obviously attributable to a clerical error. In this view, I think it unnecessary for me to discuss the further question that has been dealt with by my learned colleague.2. Both the appeals are dismissed with costs.Mookerjee, J.3. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action for ejectment commenced by a, purchaser at a s...
Pratap NaraIn Deo Vs. Harihar Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal927
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit brought to recover possession of a mouzah and for incidental relief, on the allegation that the plaintiff is the proprietor, zemindar and holder of Lachmipur estate of which this mouzah forms part. It is said that the mouzah was held by the defendant's father under several mustagiri settlements and has now devolved on them.2. By way of defence it is pleaded that the plaintiff has no title, that the defendants have a permanent right, and that in any case the suit for recovery of possession cannot succeed for want of proper notice. The plaintiff's title is established, and both the lower Courts have decided against the plea of permanent right. The first Court held that no sufficient notice to determine the lease had been given, and on that ground it dismissed the suit, but at the same time incorporated in its decree what in effect is a declaration that the defendants have not a permanent right. The lower Appellate Court considered that sufficien...
Jogendra Nath Sircar and ors. Vs. Tincowri Bhattacharjya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.205
1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs as landlords to eject the defendant as a trespasser from a certain holding. The holding in question was settled with one Fakir Dass Maity and the present defendant in execution of a money-decree against Fakir Dass Maity sold up the holding and took possession in January 1900. The plaintiffs' case was that the holding was not transferable, that the defendant acquired no title by his purchase and that, therefore, he was liable to be evicted as trespasser. The defence was that the jote was a permanent jote at a fixed rate of rent and that there was no abandonment of the jote by the tenant, that rents for the jote had been paid all along by the original tenant and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to re-entry and accordingly they would not succeed in the present suit for eviction. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs' suit but on appeal the lower appellate Court has decreed it. The defendan...
Gooroo Prasanno Lahiri and anr. Vs. Ambikamoyi Dasya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.636a
1. This is an appeal presented against a judgment passed by Mr. Justice Lal Mohan Doss, and a preliminary objection has been taken that as the learned Judge has merely remanded the case for trial of certain issues of fact no appeal is competent. In support of this contention, the decision in Kalikristo Paul v. Ramchunder Nag 8 C. 147 has been cited. This is a case which apparently has always governed the practice of this Court, and we think it cannot be distinguished from that before us now. We, therefore, allow the objection and dismiss the appeal with costs. But in order that the appellant before us shall not be prejudiced, the case on remand should again come before a single Judge....
Partap NaraIn Vs. Maigh Lall Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.656
1. This is a suit brought to recover possession of a mauza and for incidental relief, on the allegation that the plaintiff is the proprietor, zemindar and holder of Lachmipore estate of which this mauza forms part. It is said that the mauza was held by the defendant's father under several mustagiri settlements, and has now devolved on them.2. By way of defense it is pleaded that the plaintiff has no title, that the defendants have a permanent right, and that in any case the suit for recovery of possession cannot succeed for want of proper notice. The plaintiff's title is established: no further question arises in this suit upon that. Both the lower Courts had decided against the plea of permanent right. The first Court held that no sufficient notice to determine the lease had been given, and on that ground it dismissed the suit, but at the same time incorporated in its decree what in effect is a declaration that the defendants have not a permanent right. The lower appellate Court consi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »