Kolkata Court February 1910 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.
Jahandar Baksh Mallik Vs. Ram Lal Hazrah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal449
Mookerjee and Teunon, JJ.1. In these appeals, preferred by the plaintiff in the Court below, the sole point in controversy between the parties relates to the amount of rent annually payable by the defendants in respect of their several holdings. The lands comprised in the tenancies are situated in Government khas mehal, mouzah Balliarchak, in the district of Hooghly. The plaintiff is a settlement-holder, and as ijaradar he executed a kabuliat in favour of the Collector on the 13th December 1902. This lease was to continue for a term of 20 years from the 1st April 1901 to the 31st March 1921. The document recited that the farmer would collect rents from the raiyats according to law and the terms of his engagement with Government. He also undertook not to raise the rents of the raiyats for the lands settled with them beyond the amounts entered in the settlement jamabundi which had been prepared on the 30th June 1902, and admittedly furnished the basis on which the rent payable by the pla...
Rajani Kant Bhowmik and anr. Vs. Karamat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.523
1. On the 23rd October 1906, a sale was held in execution of a rent decree obtained by the opposite party decree-holder against the judgment-debtors Karamat Ali and others.2. Karamat Ali has now come forward under Sections 311 and 244 of the old Code of Civil Procedure to have the sale in question set aside on the ground of non-service of sale proclamation, and other process, and consequent inadequacy of price; also, on the ground that the rent decree, in execution of which the sale took place, was passed against a person named Ashgar who was dead at the date of the decree, 4th April 1906.3. The Court of first instance declined to set aside the sale. It found that the sale proclamation and writ of attachment had been duly served, and, also, that the price fetched was not inadequate. With regard to the further objection that the decree had been passed against a dead person, the Munsif thought that, inasmuch as this was the result of a bona fide mistake, the rent decree was a valid decre...
Jahandar Baksh Mallick Vs. Ram Lal Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.565
1. In these appeals preferred by the plaintiff in the Court below, the sole point in controversy between the parties relates to the amount of rent annually payable by the defendants in respect of their several holdings. The lands comprised in the tenancies are situated in Government khas mahal mouzah Baliachak in the District of Hooghly. The plaintiff is a settlement holder and as ijaradar he executed a kabuliat in favour of the Collector on the 13th December 1902. This lease was to continue for a term of 20 years from the 1st April 1901 to 31st March 1902. The document recited that the former would collect rents from the raiyats according to law and the terms of his engagement with Government. He also undertook not to raise the rents of the raiyats for the lands settled with them beyond the amounts entered in the settlement jamabandi which had been prepared on the 30th Jane, 1902, and admittedly furnished the basis on which the rent payable by the plaintiff to Government was calculate...
Umanath Das and ors. Vs. Monsur Ali Hawladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.570
Harington, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge who, in giving judgment for the plaintiffs, directed that the defendants should be entitled to set-off a sum of Rs. 77-4-7 1/2 from the money which was found due to the plaintiffs. The action was brought against the defendants as darputnidars for rent of a holding which they held from the plaintiffs, and the circumstances under which they claimed to set-off the Rs. 77 odd arise in consequence of a payment which was made of the entire rent of the putni to the head landlord. The putni was held by the plaintiffs, the defendants and a person named Nojimuddi. The plaintiffs held 8 annas of the putni, and the defendants and Nojimuddi each held a 4 anna share. Now, the entire rent which these three parties were bound to pay to the head landlord amounted to Rs. 309-2-6 and it appears that the defendants and Nojimuddi were compelled to pay that sum to the landlord to save the putni. 'When...
Dharam Mandal and anr. Vs. GossaIn Das Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.271
1. In this case the Magistrate purports to have made an order under Section 139, Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of an obstruction alleged to have been caused to a certain foot-path. We have granted a rule to show cause why the order should not be set aside on two grounds one of which is that the Magistrate has not decided whether the way is a public or private way. What happened is that on the conditional order having been made the present petitioner appeared, and said that the path was not a public but a private path, and it may be taken that he also asked for the appointment of a jury t0 consider the propriety of the order.2. According to the procedure prescribed in the decision in Dulalram Deb v. Baishnab Charan Deb 10 C.W.N. 845 : 4 Cr. L.J. 42, and the cases there quoted, it was the duty of the Magistrate before referring the matter to the jury to decide himself whether or not to the claim of right to the land in question is made, in good faith and whether the pathway is a pu...
Lukhan Dosadh Vs. Bachi Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.576
1. In this case the opposite party were charged with a certain offence before an Honorary Magistrate of the third class. They were convicted and sentenced to fine. The Magistrate also submitted the record to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 349 in order that the opposite party might be bound down under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub-Divisional officer dealt with the matter and ordered the opposite party to be bound down. An appeal was then instituted from the original conviction and was tried by a Joint Magistrate who had jurisdiction to try it. Dealing with the conviction before the third class Magistrate he set it aside.2. We granted a Rule to the petitioner to show cause why the acquittal by the first class Magistrate should not be set aside as having been made without jurisdiction. The way in which the case is presented to us is as follows: It is said that according to the decision of this Court in Mahmudi Sheikh v. Ali Sheikh 21 C. 622, the convicting Mag...
Deo Nagar Roy Vs. Ram Sewak Mahto and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.398
1. Ram Baran Roy and Mohipat Roy were two brothers. Defendant No. 2 and Balak Roy, father of defendant No. 6, were the sons of Ram Baran and defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were the sons of Mohipat.2. On the 4th of March, 1898, one Gobardhan Mahto executed a mortgage in respect of 10 bighas 13 cottahs of land in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and one Sheo Narain Mahto defendant No. 4 who is a relation of the plaintiffs, for Rs. 155 out of which Rs. 100 belonged to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and Rs. 55 to defendant No. 4. The rate of interest was Re. 1 per mensem per hundred and 2 per cent, per mensem if the repayment was not made on the due date.3. On the 25th March 1900 the said Gobardhan Mahto executed a zarpeshgi mortgage in favour of defendants Nos. 5 and 6, the brothers of defendants Nos. 3 and 2 respectively, for Rs. 299, mortgaging a part of the lands covered by the first mortgage of 1898. Out of this amount Rs. 121 was paid to the plaintiff in payment of some previous debt, Rs. 155 ...
Anath Nath Maitra Vs. Kumar Keshab NaraIn Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.487
1. On the 4th Bhadra 1303, B.S., the defendant No. 5 gave a patni lease of certain property to the plaintiff. It was a lease in the ordinary terms adopted in the case of patni settlements, that is to say, it was to be in force for ever. There was a saving clause in the lease with which we shall presently deal.2. In Jaisto 1304, there occurred an earthquake by reason of which the dwelling house of the lessor, on a certain portion of the land covered by the saving clause, was destroyed, and.the materials of that house were sold by the lessor, defendant No. 5, to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in Agrahayan 1304. It appears that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were then on the land.3. The plaintiff's suit was brought to obtain khas possession of the area 10 bighas, which is the subject-matter of the saving clause in the patni lease, and he based his cause of action on a possessory decree passed against him on the 26th January 1906. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit on vario...
Ganga Rai and ors. Vs. Gudar Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.499
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Darbhanga, refusing an application of the petitioners, under Section 103 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge appears to have held that the plaintiffs did appear on the 27th July 1908 before him and he appears to have followed the ruling reported in Rampertab Mul v. Jakeeram Agurwallah 23 C. 991 and held that the suit was liable to dismissal under Section 158. It is settled law and we need only refer to the case of Mariannusa v. Ram Kalpa Gorain 34 C. 235 : 5 C.L.J. 260 as one of the numerous cases which have laid down the law that when at an adjourned hearing of a suit the witnesses on behalf of a party are not in attendance and the party applies for the issue of a warrant against any one of them, the Court refused the application arid the pleader thereupon intimated that he has no further instruction to appear and the suit is dismissed, that the dismissal is not under Section 158 of the Code but under Section 102. ...
Jafar Ali Panjalia Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal446
Stephen and Carnduff, JJ.1. This is a rule calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the securities offered by the petitioner should not be accepted. The petitioner has been ordered to be bound down under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and to find sureties for Rs. 2,500, the sureties being of such number, not exceeding five, as he may see fib. He has found five sureties, all of whom are of sufficient substance to be able to pay Rs. 2,500, but who are not, in the opinion of the Magistrate, in a position to control the petitioner sufficiently to ensure his good behaviour in future.2. The question is whether the grounds on which these sureties have been refused by the Magistrate are sufficient. In our opinion they are not. In view of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Ram Pershad v. King-Emperor (1902) 6 C.W.N. 697 and Adam Sheikh v. Emperor (1908) I.L.R. 33 Calc. 400, it seems to be plain that the first matter to be enquired into is the ability of the sur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »