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.
Veletat HosseIn Vs. Bengal and North-western Ry. Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.470
1. This is a rule granted on the Bengal North Western Company to show cause why a judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge of Patna should not be set aside under the following circumstances. The petitioner took a journey on the Bengal 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 ho sued before the Sub-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 term 'luggage' will include only wearing apparel...
Haro Chandra Poddar Vs. Umesh Chandra Bhattacherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.39
1. The plaintiff in this case sued on a mortgage of a holding and was resisted by a co-sharer landlord who had purchased the holding in execution of a decree of his own. This defendant pleaded that the holding was not transferable. The Subordinate Judge following Ayenuddin Nasya v. Srish Chandra Banerji 11 C.W.N. 76, held that the question of transferability did not arise and decreed the suit, modifying the decision of the Munsif. The landlord defendant appeals.2. We think that under the circumstances of this case the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is right. The case cannot be distinguished from the ruling cited above for it makes no real difference whether the defendant in a suit of this nature is a co-sharer landlord or a tenant who claims under a lease from a co-sharer landlord. A tenant in such a case would be entitled to plead his lessor's rights to object to the plaintiff's purchase, if his lessor had any such right. Here the defendant himself is a purchaser without th...
Ram Kumar Shaha Poddar Vs. Ram Gour Shaha Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.559
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 recover, 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. The Executors of Khojah Moheeooddeen 3 C. 806. That3. decision, however, was passed under the old Code of 1859 and proceeded principally on the doctrine of caveat emptor. It...
Bhagabati Swarnakar and ors. Vs. Sakhi Baishnabi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.413
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for recovery of possession of certain land. The plaintiff's case was that this land belonged to them and that in 1303 they left the village and made it over to the defendant intrust. The defend-ant's case was that the plaintiffs in 1300 executed an unregistered conveyance of this land for Rs. 60 in his favour. The plaintiffs remained in actual possession of the land as under tenants until 1303, when they relinquished the land to the defendant. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, but on appeal the learned District Judge of Dinajpore accepted the case of the defendant and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.2. On behalf of the appellants it has been argued that there was no such delivery of the property as would amount to a sale inasmuch as the sale purports to have been made in 1300, but the possession was not delivered until 1303. Bat it appears to us that there is nothing in this contention. A sale can be effected by delivery o...
Jagadbandhu Saha Vs. Radha Krishna Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal920,4Ind.Cas.414
Coxe and Chatterjee, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiff attempted to sell certain land to the defendants for Rs. 110, and put them in possession. They then attempted to mortgage the same land back to him with some other lands for Rs. 100. Neither the sale-deed nor the mortgage-bond was registered, and the plaintiff brought this suit for recovery of possession on return of the sum of Rs. 10 paid to him by the defendants as part consideration. The Munsif gave him a decree for khas possession and mesne profits subject to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 10 with interest. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge considered that the equities on the defendants' side preponderated over those on the plaintiff's, and that the plaintiff was estopped by his conduct from recovering possession. He accordingly gave the plaintiff a decree for the unpaid balance of the consideration money, and directed that this should be a charge on the disputed land.2. The plaintiff appeals to this Court and relies on ...
Uday Chandra Das Bairagi Vs. Hari Das Bairagi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.417
1. The plaintiffs,, one of whom is the appellant before us from the judgment of Mr. Justice Doss in second appeal, brought this suit to recover possession of a piece of land which they alleged belonged to their maternal grandfather Ram Das Bairagi. The claim was contested by the defendants who pleaded, first, that the plaintiffs were not the heirs of Ram Das Bairagi, and, secondly, that even if they were the heirs, they, the defendants, had a better title by virtue of a devise to them of the property in dispute. The interest of Ram Das Bairagi in this property was that of a raiyat who had an occupancy right, and an argument of considerable interest has been addressed to us both on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, as to whether an interest of that kind could be bequeathed. Had it been necessary for us to determine that point, then we should have had to refer to a Full Bench two points. The first point would have been whether a holding in respect of which there was a non-occup...
Aman Ali Vs. Mir Hossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.739
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover rent at the yearly rate of Rs. 10-8. The defendant objected that no more than Rs. 8 could be recovered, and based his objection on the plea of estoppel. His case is that he bought the property at an auction-sale, and in the sale-certificate, the rent was described not as Rs. 10-8 but as Rs. 8 a year. In support of this plea of estoppel the evidence adduced has been, as far as we can see, this certificate and nothing else. Manifestly, the certificate which was subsequent to the sale could not have influenced the conduct of the defendant, or induced him to buy under a misapprehension, as to the rental, and we agree with what the learned Judge, Mr. Justice Lalmohan Doss has said on this point, but we are unable to affirm his order of remand, because it is too late now to adduce evidence on this point. The defendant was not taken by surprise, for this was a point raised by him in his written statement, and if he failed to adduce proper evidenc...
Madhumala and anr. Vs. Alfazaddi Kazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.415
1. This case comes before us by way of second appeal and arises out of a suit brought to recover rent and cesses with interest at 1 anna per rupee per month in respect of a jama, of Rs. 1-5-6; and, astounding as it may seem, this litigation which has lasted for over 4 years is now confined to the point as to whether interest is payable upon Re. 1-5-6.2. The decision of the lower appellate Court was in favour of the obligation to pay this interest and it was from that determination that the appeal was presented to this Court, and came in the first instance before Mr. Justice Brett. That learned Judge considered that the matter was concluded in favour of the appellant before him by a decree in a prior suit which appeared to him to support the plea of res judicata. That point has not been urged before us, but Dr. Priya Nath Sen has endeavoured with considerable ability to support the judgment under appeal on other grounds. It appears to me, however, that his argument must fail. The whole ...
Atal Rishi and anr. Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.417a
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the plaintiff in an action for ejectment. The fifth defendant is the admitted owner of the property. In 1891 he granted an ijara to the first defendant which was to continue for five years from the 13th April 1891. On the 24th December 1892, the father of the plaintiff purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding from one of the raiyats on the property. It is conceded that this transfer could not be operative as against the landlord unless his consent was obtained. The first defendant, who was ijaradar at the time, refused, as a matter of fact, to recognize this purchase by the father of the plaintiff. He went further and took possession of the holding which he subsequently settled with the fourth defendant. Upon the expiry of the ijara in April 1896, the purchase by the father of the present plaintiff was recognized by the fifth defendant. On the strength of this recognition, the plaintiff now seeks to eject the fourth defendant, who, he contends, ...
Ananda Chandra Roy Vs. Makram Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.204
1. On the facts of this case it is, we think, clear that the under-raiyat, who is the defendant, had a right to pay his rent in the form of a money-rent, and the suit is framed for the purpose of recovering from him the money rent. The rights of the parties in relation to the recovery of that rent must be determined by reference to Section 48 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the limit imposed by that section must be observed. And so without entering into the question as to whether the words 'holding at a money rent' is one descriptive of that landlord or the under-tenant, we think there is sufficient in the facts of this case as found to enable us to uphold the decision under appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »