Kolkata Court August 1909 Judgments
Chhoto Rakhal Das Majumdar Vs. Jogendra NaraIn Mozumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.391
1. The substantial question of law which, calls for decision in this appeal is, 'whether an application presented on the 21st December, 1907, for execution of a decree made on the 6th December, 1904, is. barred by limitation.2. The Court below has held that the application is not barred, because the decree was amended on the 4th January 1905. This view has been assailed on behalf of the judgment-debtor on the ground that time runs against the decree-holder from the date of the judgment, and that as the amendment related merely to costs and did not effect the substantial portion of the decree, the decree-holder is not entitled to apply within three years from the date of the amendment for execution of the decree in so far as it relates to possession of the properties. On behalf of the decree-holder, it has been contended that although the application was described as one for amendment, it was really in the nature of one for review of judgment and that time runs consequently from the dat...
Tag this Judgment!Bidhumukhi Dasi Vs. Jitendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.442
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has culminated in the present appeal is an area of 344 bighas of land. The circumstances under which the plaintiff and defendants, respectively, claim the ownership of the disputed property, are of some complexity but when they are carefully analysed, the questions in controversy between the parties turn out to be fairly simple of solution.2. For members of a family of Mitters, by name Bhagabati Charan, Ramdoyal, Dindoyal, and Chandra Kant, all descendants of one Jagannath, were the owners of two properties, one a kharija taluq which they held directly under the Government and which bore No. 697 (former No. 353) on the Revenue Rolls of the Collector of Jessore, and another a maurusi jama or hereditary tenure which they held under the predecessors of the first two defendants, who possessed a putni right in that property. For the sake of brevity, the first of these properties may be described as the taluk, and the second as the ganti. The Mit...
Tag this Judgment!Tega Singh Vs. Bichitru Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.452
1. We are invited by the appellant in this case to appoint a Receiver in respect of the properties which are the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. The decree of this Court affirmed the decree of the Court below, and an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was refused. Subsequently the plaintiff applied to the Judicial Committee and obtained special leave to appeal. The order of His Majesty in Council is in these terms:It is hereby ordered that leave be and the same is hereby granted to the petitioner to enter and prosecute his appeal against the said decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated the 20th day of December 1905 upon depositing in the Registry of the Privy Council the sum of 200 sterling as security for costs and that liberty be and it is hereby reserved to the respondent to move their Lordships for an order increasing the amount of the said security so to be deposited as aforesaid by the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Khajeh Salimulla Bahadur and anr. Vs. Abdul Khayer Mohammad Must ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.419
1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has, culminated in this appeal, consists of immovable: properties comprised in two, waqfs, one created by; Ainuddin Hyder on the 22nd April 1864, and the other by his, widow Faizunnessa Bibi on the 29th January 1877. The plaintiff who is, a relation of the founders of the two waqfs seeks for declaration of his right as: muttualli and for recovery of possession of the properties of the endowments. The first defendant is the, Nawab, of Dacca and is now in possession of the properties as the, mutwalli under the deed of Faizunnessa executed on the-29th January 1877. The second defendant is a cousin of the plaintiff, who had previously failed in a, litigation commenced by him on, the 14th August 1880 for recovery of possession of the waqf properties as, mutwalli. The third and fourth defendants are sisters of the plaintiff and have been brought on the record as members of the family interested in the endowment. Their relation to the founder is,...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Kumar Krishna Das Law and ors. Vs. Girija Nath Roy Chowdhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.472
1. The substantial question of law which calls for decision in this appeal is whether it is competent to a co-sharer landlord to make an application under Section 105 Clause (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of rent. The Settlement Officer as also the Special Judge has answered this question in the negative. There is no authority directly bearing upon the point and the determination of the question, therefore, must depend upon the construction of the language used by the legislature.2. Sub-section 2 of Section 105 provides that when in any case in which a settlement of land revenue is not being made or is not about to be made, the Revenue Officer has recorded, in pursuance of Clause (7) of Section 102, that the occupant of any land claimed to be held rent free is not entitled to hold it without payment of rent and either the landlord or the occupant applies within two months from the date of the certificate of the final publication of the Record of Rights, under Section 103A...
Tag this Judgment!Peari Dai Debi Vs. Jotindra Nath Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.441
1. We are invited by learned Counsel for the defendants in this case to recall the order made on the 1st March 1909 and to dismiss the suit. The application is of a somewhat novel character, and it is consequently necessary to state the circumstances under which it has been made.2. This action which was commenced as far back as the 20th June 1898 to enforce specific performance of an agreement made on the 21st June 1895, was dismissed by Mr. Justice Chitty on the 6th April 1908. An appeal was preferred against his judgment, and on the 1st March, 1909, judgment was delivered in the appeal. The concluding: portion of that judgment is as follows: 'There is, how-ever, one matter which has not been argued before us or in the Court of first instance, viz., that the executors of Bangsa Gopal are necessary parties to this suit. This suit has been brought by the heirs of Bengsa Gopal. The contract is, however, one entered into by the -executors of his will and they ought to have been the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!KalimuddIn Bhuya Vs. ReazuddIn Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.743
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge confirming with slight modification the decree of the Court of first instance. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 purchased a property at an auction sale for Rs. 560. For their own convenience, they partitioned the property and the ekrarnama contained the following stipulation: 'Any of the parties desirous of selling the lands allotted to his share shall sell the same to the other party willing to buy the same at the proper sale price. Sale to any body else (shall be) invalid. But if the parties do not purchase at the proper sale price, the other party shall be entitled to sell to others. Let it be known that the value of the partitioned property is (will be) Rs. 600.' In breach of that covenant, the second defendant has sold or purported to sell his share to the first defendant, the appellant in this case, for the sum of Its. 400. The plaintiff accordingly brought t...
Tag this Judgment!Pirthichand Lal Chowdhry Vs. Basarat Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal30
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J., Stephen, Mookerjee and Chatterjee, JJ.1. In this case the record-of-rights under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act was finally published on the 18th February 1907 and the defendant was recorded in the khatian as a mere occupancy raiyat. On the 8th of April following, the landlord made an application for settlement of rent under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendant pleaded that he was a raiyat, at a fixed rent, which was not liable to enhancement. The Settlement Officer overruled the plea of the tenant and enhanced his rent by 1 1/2 annas in the rupee. On appeal by the tenant the Special Judge held that as he proved payment of rent at a uniform rate for more than twenty years, he was entitled to the benefit of the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that presumption not having been rebutted his rent was not liable to enhancement. The landlord appealed to this Court, and it was contended on his behalf that as the status...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha Vs. Ram Lal Maitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1909
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal128
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The questions referred for our determination are:(i) Does the principle of Hindu law, which invalidates a gift other than to a sentient being capable of accepting it, apply-to a bequest to trustees for the establishment of an image and the worship of a Hindu deity after the testator's death and make such a bequest void?(ii) Whether the cases of Upendra Lal Boral v. Hem Chundra Boral (1897) I.L.R. 25 Calc. 405, Rojomoyee Dassee v. Troylukho Mohiney Basset (1901) I.L.R. 29 Calc. 200 and Nogendra-Nandini Dassi v. Benoy Krishna Deb (1902) I.L.R. 30 Calc. 521 have been correctly decided, so far as they lay down the proposition that a gift to a Hindu deity, whose image is to be established and consecrated in future, is void?2. The disposition which has led to this reference is contained in the will of Umesh Chandra Lahiri, and is in these terms:(Ka) All my properties shall be placed in the hands of Babu Ram Lal Maitra, son of late Ram Chandra Maitra of Haripur, an...
Tag this Judgment!Pirthi Chand Lal Chowdhury Vs. Sheikh Basarat Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.449
Chatterjee, J.1. In this case the Record-of-Rights under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act was finally published on the 18th February 1907 and the defendant was recorded in the Khatian as a mere occupancy raiyat. On the 8th of April following the landlord made an application for settlement of rent under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendant pleaded that he was a raiyat at a fixed rent which was not liable to enhancement. The Settlement Officer overruled the plea of the tenant and enhanced his rent by 1 1/2 annas in the rupee. On appeal by the tenant the special Judge held that as he proved payment of rent at an uniform rate for more than 20 years he was entitled to the benefit of the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and that presumption not having been rebutted, his rent was not liable to enhancement. The landlord appealed to this Court and it was contended on his behalf that as the status of the tenant had been finally published under Section 102...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »