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.
Kunja Behary Roy Vs. Namai Chand Pal and ors. and Srimatya Brojeshwan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.526
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Nemai Chand against his second cousin Kunja Behari (defendant No. 1) the latter's wife (defendant No. 5) and three other defendants who are Kunja Behari's maternal relatives or connections.2. The plaintiff claims a-half share in certain properties on the ground that they are properties to which he and the defendant No. 1 are jointly entitled as the surviving members of a joint Hindu family.3. The plaintiff succeeded in the Court below and this appeal is preferred by the defendants Nos. 1 and 5.4. The following genealogical table shows how the principal parties are descended from their common ancestor, Madhu Sudhan Roy. It will be seen that the latter left two sons Anantaram, the elder, from whom defendant No. 1 is descended and Anandaram, the younger, from whom the plaintiff is descended.Madhu Sudan Roy. | | ____________|_____________ ___________________|_______________ | | | | |Jadu Nath Dutt | | Ananta Ram Ananda Ram=Goluk...
Lal Mahomed Sarkar Vs. Jagir Sheikh Mallik and Nehal Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.654a
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of land. It was dismissed by both the lower Courts but on appeal Mr. Justice Brett passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. From this decree the present appeal has been preferred under the Letters Patent.2. The facts found are that Ambica Churn Dutt held the suit land as a raiyat under Ambica Moyi Dasi, the proprietor; that the plaintiffs held the land as under-raiyat under Ambica Churn Dutt, that on the 27th of February 190], Ambica Churn Dutt's raiyati interest was expressed to be transferred to Satya Bhama who was benamidar for Ambica Moyi Dasi; that Ambica Moyi Dasi made the land khas and let it to defendant No. 1; and that thus the plaintiffs have been dispossessed.3. Before us it has been contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to possession as under Section 85 (1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act the oral sub-lease to them is not valid against defendant No. 1 who for this purpose, it is argued, stands in the position of land...
Dalmir Puri Vs. Khodadad Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal923,4Ind.Cas.415
Caspersz and Ryves, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Deputy Magistrate, dated the 19th March 1909, directing the police to see that the bund is removed, should not be set aside on the ground that the Deputy Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make an order, directing the bund to be removed by the police, within the purview of Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. We have heard the learned vakil showing cause against the Rule and the learned Counsel in support of it. It appears that, on the 23rd December 1908, the Deputy Magistrate passed an order in the following terms: 'I, therefore, order that the bund, which is an obstruction, should be removed, and order that the second party (the petitioner) should not erect any obstruction until they obtain the decision of a competent Court adjudging them entitled to do such a thing. The first party (the opposite party in this Rule) should deposit Rs. 25 f...
Babu Lal Sheikh Vs. Purna Chandra Babu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.737
1. This is a suit to recover possession of lands; and, the principal point urged before us on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant is that Section 181 of the Bengal Tenancy Act applies, and, as a consequence, an occupancy right could not be acquired as against him. It is unnecessary for us, in the circumstances of this case, to express any opinion as to whether or not an occupancy right can be acquired in land held under ghatwali tenure, and we refrain from expressing any opinion on that point. It is clear that the plaintiff's title is now not as a person entitled to a ghatwali tenure but by virtue of a settlement under the zemindar, defendant No. 2. It is conceded that as against defendant No. 2 an occupancy right could be obtained and the plaintiff cannot be in any better position.2. The result is that we dismiss this appeal with costs and confirm the decree of the Subordinate Judge....
Nobendra Kishore Roy and ors. Vs. Kazi Lutful Huq
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.513
1. The plaintiffs in this case are the purchasers of an entire estate at a revenue sale, and sue for recovery of certain land as being included within that estate. The learned District Judge of Noakhali in first appeal has dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.2. The first point taken in appeal is that the learned District Judge has erred in holding that the plaintiffs cannot merely by proving the thak map shift the burden of proof to the other side. Reading the judgment as a whole it seems clear that the District Judge took the thak into consideration. The plaintiffs relied on that and nothing else, and he considered that it was not sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the defendant.3. A number of cases have been cited to show what is the value of thak maps. There are certainly cases in which the thak map is quite sufficient to raise a prima facie case on behalf of the person pleading it and to put the other side to the task of rebutting that evidence; but we cannot in secon...
Baroda Churn Dutt and anr. Vs. Hemlata Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.561
1. The plaintiff in this case has obtained a decree for khas possession on the ground that defendant No. 1, a tenant, with an occupancy right, executed in favour of 'defendant No. 3 a usufructuary mortgage with possession and thereby rendered the holding liable to be recovered at the suit of the landlord. The answer to the plaintiff's claim is that in 1308 the mortgage was recognised as is shown by the written receipts of money on account of rent, wherein the payment of rent is expressed to be through Baroda Churn Dutt, the mortgagee.' After this recognition it is clear that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the ground on which he based his claim. We must, therefore, reverse the judgment under appeal and that of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the Munsif with costs throughout....
Kailaspati NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Gango Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.735
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for arrears of rent payable in part in cash and in part in produce. We are now only concerned with so much of the rent as is payable in the form of paddy, and the objection taken on the part of the appellants before us is that they are entitled to have it determined in this suit whether this paddy rent is to be taken by appraisement or division and that whichever it be, it should he determined in this suit what their rights are in respect of that rent.2. By way of answer to the appellants contention it is urged that the matter is concluded by the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer of Nowada, dated the 18th of April 1905 to the 17th of May in the same year. These proceedings, it is contended, Bring the matter within Sections 69 and 70 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. But to make good that contention it must be shown that as required by Section 70 Sub-section (5), the Collector passed an order entitled to finality and enforceable as a decr...
Madon Mohan Chattopadhya Vs. Akshoy Kumar Baruri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.23
1. This case has been argued before us by Mr. Chatterjee who has placed the conduct of the appellant in its most favourable light; and he has sought to remove the impression created by a perusal of the judgment of the lower Court, that his client was not deserving of much sympathy in a Court when he asked for the grant of an injunction. But notwithstanding his argument we feel that the judgment of Mr. Justice Brett should not be disturbed. To begin with there is the initial difficulty that we have not before us all the servient owners, and how we can pass a decree based on easement in that state of the record it is difficult to see. Even if that difficulty be got over and it be conceded for the purpose of argument that the right of the plaintiff has been infringed, still it is clear that this is a case in which the plaintiff is not entitled to the remedy of injunction and that is the only remedy he seeks so that on that ground it would be impossible to confirm the decree of the lower a...
Velayat HosseIn Vs. Bengal and North-western Railway Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal819
Stephen and Vincent, JJ.1. This is a Rule on the Bengal and North-Western Railway Company to show cause why a judgment and, decree of the Subordinate Judge of Patna should not be set aside under the following circumstances. The petitioner took a journey on the Bengal and North-Western Railway for which he took two third-class railway tickets. At the same time he delivered a package to the servants of the Railway Company to be taken as passenger's luggage and paid a certain sum as extra charges in respect of the excess weight of the package beyond what was allowed free of charge. The package contained merchandise which it is not suggested could be considered as luggage. It was not delivered to the petitioner at the end of his journey, and he sued before the Subordinate Judge acting in his Small Cause Court jurisdiction, for damages caused by its loss. The Judge dismissed the suit holding that the case was governed by rule No. 76 of the Company's General Rules. This is as follows: 'The t...
Ram Kumar Shaha Vs. Ram Gour Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal67
Coxe and Chatterjee, JJ.1. The defendant, appellant in this suit, instituted a rent suit against one Buzlar Sobhan Chowdhury. He obtained a decree and in execution put up a certain jote to sale as being the property of Buzlar Sobhan. This property was purchased by the plaintiff. Subsequently a certain Mrs. Dillany brought a suit, in which she made the present plaintiff and the present defendant parties, for a declaration that this jote belonged, not to Buzlar Sobhan Chowdhury, but to herself, and in this suit she obtained a decree. The plaintiff then brought this suit for recovery of the money which he had paid for his purchase. The suit has been decreed and the defendant appeals.2. The first point taken on behalf of the appellant is that the suit itself is not maintainable, and reliance is placed first on the decision in Dorab Ally Khan v. Executors of Khajah Moheeooddeen (1878) I.L.R. 3 Calc. 806. That decision, however, was passed under the old Code of 1859 and proceeded principally...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »