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.
Sonatan Sheikh Vs. Chaku Sheikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.398
1. After hearing the learned Vakils on both sides I am of opinion that the appeal must be decreed.2. The only question raised before the lower appellate Court was one of limitation, the question being whether 2 years' special limitation as provided by the Bengal Tenancy Act applied or whether the ordinary limitation of 12 years.3. The Court of the first instance held that the 12 years' limitation applied. The lower appellate Court on the contrary held that it was governed by the two years' limitation.4. The plaintiff's ' case was that the land in suit originally formed part of his holding and that he allowed the defendant to build a house on it on the understanding that he should pay a certain rent. The defendant build the house and afterwards refused to pay rent to the plaintiff. He then went to the superior landlord, obtained a settlement of the land from him and since then has been paying rent to the superior landlord.5. The lower appellate Court held that these acts on the part of ...
Musammat Ketki and ors. Vs. Dinabandhu Patnaik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.395
1. This, and the two other analogous appeals, are from three judgments of the Subordinate Judge of Sumbalpore, dated the 3rd of January 1907, affirming the judgments of the Munsif of that place dated the 15th of September 1906, in three suits by the plaintiff to recover possession of the occupancy holdings. There was a fourth suit by the same plaintiff against these defendants for possession of a house. Bat no appeal has been preferred to this Court from the judgment of the Court below in that suit. All these four suits were brought on the same date, that is, the 18th of June 1906. It appears that one Saraswati was the gaontia and lambardar of a five anna 4 pie share in village Kinghati. She executed on the 18th of June a usufructuary mortgage of this share and of the house belonging to her for a period of five years in favour of Lokenath Acharjee and his son Padmanav defendant No. I. During the currency of this mortgage the mortgagees took a mortgage by way of conditional sale of an o...
Basarat Ali Khan Vs. Manirulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal745
Lawrence Jenkins C.J. and Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of property. On the 20th of October 1881, a permanent lease of the property in suit was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, and in that lease was a covenant in these terms: 'You (i.e., the lessee) shall not be able to dig pits and tanks or to transfer the land in any way without a letter from me to that effect.' There was, however, no right of re-entry reserved. On the 7th of April 1901, the lessee purported to assign her interest under this lease to the plaintiff. Apart from the covenant, which I have read, there can be no question that the assignment was good, for all notices and formalities required by the Bengal Tenancy Act were given and observed. But it has been argued before us that the assignment was inoperative, at any rate as between the lessor and the lessee. The appeal in the, first instance came before a learned Judge of this Court sitting alone, and he decided a...
Pachi Dasi Vs. Bala Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.405a
Coxe, J.1. This was a suit by the daughter of one Kala Nath Dass to set aside as fraudulent a bond said to have been executed by Kala Nath Das in favour of the defendant No. 2 and the decree obtained upon it on confession of judgment, by her brother Bala. The plaintiff's case was that Bala was excluded by his blindess from the inheritance, that she was the heir of Kala Nath Das, and that the proceedings in the bond suit were fraudulent and had been fraudulently concealed from her. The Court of first instance found that Bala's blindness was not proved to be of such a character as to exclude him from the inheritance, and that the bond and suit upon it were dishonest. It accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge dealt with the case under Section 551 of the former Code, without sending for the record. After stating the points for determination the Subordinate Judge observed: ''After examining the judgment of the lower Court and considering the arguments urged by the l...
Sri Gobind Parsad Vs. Musammat Laljhari Kuer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.402
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Patna, dated the 24th June 1907, dismissing the application of the petitioner-appellant for revocation of an order granting Letters of Administration, under Section 50 of the Probate and Administration Act, on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi for such revocation. The will in respect of which Letters of Administration wore granted was made by a Hindu widow purporting to convey her stridhan property to her daughter and to her grandson who have taken out Letters of Administration accordingly. We are now asked to revoke the order granting Letters of Administration be-cause the testatrix had in fact no stridhan property and the property which she purported to deal by the will was the property of the joint family of which she was a member. It was farther alleged that the will was forged and objectionable on other grounds. The learned Judge of the Court below has held, as we have said before, that the petitioner had...
Basarat Ali Khan Vs. Manirulla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.416
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of property. On the 20th of October 1881, a permanent lease of the property in suit was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, and in that lease was a covenant, in these terms, you,' (that is, the lessee) shall not be able to dig pits and tanks or to transfer the land in any way without a letter from me to that effect.' There was, however, no right of re-entry reserved. On the 7th of April 1901, the lessee purported to assign her interest under this lease to the plaintiff. Apart from the covenant which I have read, there can be no question that the assignment was good, for all notices and formalities required by the Bengal Tenancy Act were given and observed. But it has been argued before us that the assignment was of no operation, at any rate as between the lessor and the lessee. The case in the first instance came before a learned Judge of this Court sitting alone, and he decided against the appellant's contention ...
Haradhan Chattopadhaya Vs. Prankrishna Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.961
1. This is a Rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the defendant's appeal to this Court should not be registered although out of time. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendant from certain land. He alleged that the defendant was a trespasser, but, in order to guard against a case of tenancy being set up, he had in fact given the defendant due notice to quit. The defendant pleaded that he was the plaintiff's tenant by purchase from a former tenant. He also raised the wholly inconsistent plea that he had been in possession as a trespasser for more than 12 years and that he had thus acquired a title by adverse possession. The lower appellate Court acted upon the first plea of the defendant that he was a tenant. It found that he had been duly served with a notice to quit and accordingly passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge very properly declined to consider the question of limitation, which did not on his findings arise.2. The decree of the...
Jadunath Chowdhry Vs. Kailas Chandra Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal63
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The three plaintiffs in this case, who are respondents before us, have brought this suit for the establishment of their title to the lands in suit and also for recovery of possession. By way of answer to this suit, it was pleaded that it was barred by limitation, and that as against plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3, an answer was furnished by an award made in a reference to which plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 and the defendants were parties. The plea of limitation did not succeed in either Court, nor has it been pressed on us in appeal. The plea on the award did not commend itself to either of the lower Courts or to the learned Judge before whom this case came in the first instance on second appeal. It appeared to the learned Judge, as also to the lower Appellate Court, that it was a fatal objection to the validity of this award that all the present plaintiffs were not parties to it, and an argument based on the supposed analogy of Section 506 of the old Civil Procedure Co...
Ram Charan Pal Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Srimati Ekadashi Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.397
1. These three appeals arise out of three suits brought by the plaintiffs to recover rents for the years 1305 to 1308 from the defendants. In the Courts below the question was raised whether the plaintiffs were entitled to rents at the rates claimed because they had in 1299 enhanced the original rentals beyond the limits fixed by the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The Court of first instance after a remand came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had enhanced the rents in 1299 beyond the limit provided by Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs then appear to have set up in opposition to this ground of defence two contentions-one was that at the time of the commencement of the tenancy there had been an agreement by which the tenants had consented to the enhancement in 1299 of the rentals up to the rate claimed in the suit: the other was that under proviso I to Section 29 of the Act the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the rents at the rate claim...
Butloo Khan and ors. Vs. Gomani Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.836
1. This is a Rule calling on the holders of three decrees to show cause why an order of the Small Cause Court Judge at Howrah directing a rateable distribution among them to the prejudice of the petitioners should not be set aside.2. It appears that on 11th December, 1908, Gomani Singh) filed a suit (No. 2087 of 1908 in the Howrah Small Cause Court) against Darshan Goalaandon 12th December 1908, attached before judgment certain buffaloes belonging to Darshan Goala. In that suit a decree was passed on 28th January 1909.3. On 11th December 1908, Hossein Khan and Kalian Khan filed suit No., 2088 of 1908 in the same Court against the same defendant and on the 12th December attached before judgment the same buffaloes. They also obtained a decree on 28th January 1909.4. On 15th December 1908, Khajir Khan and Umar Khan filed suit No. 2106 of 1908 in the same Court against the same defendant and on 16th December 1908 attached before judgment the same buffaloes. These plaintiffs obtained a decr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »