Kolkata Court December 1910 Judgments
Shashi Mohan Sutradhar and anr. Vs. BipIn Behary Karmokar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.20
Chatterjee, J.1. Judgment.--This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiffs for ejecting the defendants from the land in suit on the allegations that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had resided upon the said land and enjoyed the fruits of the trees thereon, that they had no transferable interest in the land, that the said defendants since 1304 had been residing in a different village abandoning the land in suit and ceased to pay rent; and that the defendant No. 4, who was in possession of the land as transferee of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, had no right to occupy it.2. The defence of the defendants Nos. 2 and 4 was to the effect that there was no abandonment and that they never ceased to pay rent.3. The land is partly horticultural and partly homestead.4. The Court of first instance found that although the tenant defendants had left the village and had not paid rent since 1307 B.S., there was no disclaimer of the interest on their part so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover ...
Tag this Judgment!NabIn Chandra Sarma and ors. Vs. Sheikh Amir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.132
1. This is a Rule, at the instance of the plaintiffs, calling on opposite party (defendants) to show cause why the order of the Sudder Munsif of Sylhet, dated the 4th of May, 1910, in Title Suit No. 700 of 1909, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit should not be set aside. Cause is shown. The plaintiffs' suit was under Section 9 of Act I of 1877. In the heading of the plaint, the plaintiffs' names are given in their personal capacity, but in the body of the plaint the fact is disclosed that the land in suit belongs to an idol Mangal Chandi, and that the plaintiffs hold it as shebaits, that is, in a representative capacity. No objection on this score was taken by the defendants until the case came on for hearing, when it was contended that the suit, as framed, was not tenable. The Munsif has given effect to that contention and dismissed the suit.2. On behalf of the defendants, it is urged that this is not a matter over which this Court has jurisdiction within the terms of Section 115 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Brojonath Saha and ors. Vs. Dines Chandra Neogi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.418
1. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are co-sharers in a certain revenue-paying estate. On the 23rd Chaitra 1292, Annada Sundari Dasya, the mother of defendant No. 4, executed what is headed as a kobala or out-and-out sale of land' in favour of the plaintiffs. These lands were khamar lands and they were specified by the vendor, who described herself as owner in possession with power and right to make gift or sale of a certain fractional share in the mahal within which the khamar lands were included. Towards the end of the conveyance, there is a stipulation that the vendees would pay annually 51/4 annas as rajashya, Government revenue, of the land conveyed into the vendor's sarkar; in other words, the vendees would pay a certain sum of money which the vendor would be bound to remit to the Collector as revenue payable in respect of the land so conveyed. The plaintiffs were not registered as proprietors of the lands in question. Thereafter, a partition was effected under the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Osman Shaha Vs. Mahomed Amar Sirkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.22
Woodroffe, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye, passed in the exercise of his powers of a Court of Small Causes, should not be set aside; and the ground stated in the petition is this, that the learned Small Cause Court Judge ought to have held that, under the circumstances of the case, there was no waiver on the part of the plaintiff and hence the suit was barred by limitation.2. The learned pleader who appears in support of the decree has endeavoured to uphold the judgment on the ground that the case is not one within the purview of Article 75 of the first Schedule of the Limitation Act, and that the provisions of the bond which relate to default have effect merely as regards the payment of interest and are not a condition that if there be default in the payment of one instalment, then the whole amount should become due and payable, so as to bring the matter within the scope of Article 75....
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Nath Saha and ors. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Neogi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.67
1. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are co-sharers in a certain revenue paying estate. On the 23rd Chaitra 1292, Annada Sundari Dasya, the mother of defendant No. 4, executed what is headed as a kobala of out and out sale of land in favour of the plaintiffs. These lands were khamar lands, and they were specified by the vendor who described herself as owner in possession with power and right to make gift or sale of a certain fractional share in the mahal within which the khamar lands were included. Towards the end of the conveyance, there is a stipulation that the vendees would pay annually 5 1/4 annas as rajashya, Government revenue, of the land conveyed into the vendor's sarkar; in other words, the vendees would pay a certain sum of money which the vendor would be bound to remit to the Collector as revenue payable in respect of the land so conveyed. The plaintiffs were not registered as proprietors of the; lands in question. Thereafter, a partition was effected under the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasiram Mondal Vs. Asirbad Mahto
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.69
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the defendant-appellant has no right to use the water of the plaintiff's tank for irrigating his lands, and for a perpetual injunction restraining him from taking the water of the tank. The Court of first instance found that the defendant had no right to use the water of the tank by prescription under Section 26 of the Limitation Act, The learned Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision and held that the defendant had proved a prescriptive right to the use of the water of the tank for irrigating his lands.2. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court, and the first point raised in appeal is that the finding of the lower appellate Court, that defendant had proved a prescriptive right, is erroneous as it has not displaced the finding of the first Court that there was no continuous user of the water of the tank. The appellant contends that it is necessary to prove user in each year. In the present case the learned Subordinate Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Das Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal378
Stephen, J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is entitled to receive from the defendant payment of Rs. 300 a month for the rest of his life, and to recover from him a sum of Rs. 8,610 representating the balance of the sum that is due to him on the default of the defendant to pay him this amount since the 25th May 1902. The facts of the case are peculiar, and it is admitted that shortly they are as follows. In 1881 the plaintiff was acting as a schoolmaster in the employment of the Education Department of the Government of India at Darjeeling. In that year he was employed by the defendant to undertake a highly dangerous journey into Tibet and to make certain enquiries there, the result of which, if the expedition were successful, would be useful to the Government. The terms on which he was employed are contained in a document dated the 4th September 1881, signed by Mr. Cockerell, who was at that time Secretary to the Government of Bengal and was authorise...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran Pathak Vs. Raghu Nandan Gir.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal387
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Gaya to shew cause why the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be quashed on the ground that they are without jurisdiction and in direct contravention of the ruling in Guiram Ghosal v. Lal Behari Das (1910) I.L.R. 37 Cale. 578.2. It has been pointed out to us by the learned vakil who appears to shew cause, and very properly pointed out, that, so far as the declaration of possession of the temple and the land on which it stands in favour of Raghu Nandan Gir goes, that declaration has been made with full jurisdiction, and is not in contravention of any ruling of this Court.3. The only question which arises in this case is whether the declaration that Raghu Nandan Gir is in possession of the offerings is an order made with jurisdiction or not. It is contended that the offerings made in a temple are of the same nature as the rents and profits ari...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran Pattak Vs. Ragu Nandan Gir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.6
1. This was a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Gya to show cause why the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, should not be quashed on the ground that they are without jurisdiction and in direct contravention of the ruling Gui Ram Ghoshal v. Lal Behary Das 12 C.L.J. 22 : 6 Ind. Cas. 182 : 14 C.W.N. 611 : 37 C. 578. It has been pointed out to us by the learned Vakil who appears to show cause and very properly pointed out that so far as the declaration of possession of the temple and the land on which it stands in favour of Raghunandan Gir goes, that declaration has been made with full jurisdiction, and is not in contravention of any ruling of this Court.2. The only objection which arises in this case is, whether the declaration that Raghunandan Gir is in possession of the offerings is an order made with jurisdiction or not.3. It is contended that the offerings made in a temple are of the same nature as the rents and profits arising o...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Das Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.859
Stephen, J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is entitled to receive from the defendant payment of Rs. 300 a month for the rest of his life, and to recover from him a sum of Rs. 8,610 representing the balance of this sum that is due to him on the default of the defendant to pay him this amount since the 25th May 1902. The facts of the case are peculiar, and it is admitted that shortly they are as follows: In 1881 the plaintiff was acting as a school master in the employment of the Education Department of the Government of India at Darjeeling. In that year he was employed by the defendant to undertake a highly dangerous journey into Tibet and to make certain inquiries there, the result of which, if the expedition were successful, would be useful to the Government. The terms on which he was employed are contained in a document dated the 4th September, 1881, signed by Mr. Cockerell, who was at that time Secretary to the Government of Bengal, and was authori...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »