Kolkata Court March 1910 Judgments
Rani Dasi and anr. Vs. Asuthsh Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.206
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action for abatement of rent of a tenure held by them under the first four defendants. The case for the plaintiffs was that their predecessor-in-interest purchased the lands of the tenancy at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, that in the sale certificate which was granted, the property was described as comprising 16 plots of which the total area was 12 bighas, and 19fcottahs, that they were in possession of the lands of the tenancy for many years, but that recently as the result of a litigation between themselves and the fifth defendant they have been -deprived of possession of two parcels of which the area, though stated in the sale certificate as 1 bigha and 13 cottahs, was really 4 bighas. They, therefore, prayed for a reduction of rent on account of the loss of these 4 bighas of land. The defendants in their written statement did not dispute the allegation of the plaintiff that the total area was 12 bigh...
Tag this Judgment!Srinath Das Vs. Probhat Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.244
1. The question of law which has been argued in this appeal is one of some novelty, and arises under circumstances of an exceptional character as to which there is no controversy among the parties except in one particular. The suit, out of which the appeal arises, was commenced for the partition of joint property which belonged admittedly to the plaintiff Kali Charan Das and the predecessor of the defendants. Ram Kanai Das, in equal shares. Ram Kanai Das had three sons Prosonna Kumar Das, the 1st defendant, Provath Chandra Das, the second defendant, and Rajani Kanta Das, who left his home many years ago. At the time when Rajani Kanta Das disappeared, he had married and he left behind him his wife Kristo Kumari Dasi, the third defendant. The plaintiff commenced the action for partition of the property, and he joined as defendants Prosonna Kumar, Probhat Chandra and Kristo Kumari. Of these the first defendant filed a written statement, in which he alleged that Rajani Kanta had predecease...
Tag this Judgment!Kissori Lal Jaini Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal585
Carnduff and Richardson, JJ.1. This is a rule to show cause why an order passed by the Municipal Magistrate for the demolition of a building in Calcutta should not be set aside on two grounds, namely, first, because the Secretary to the Corporation had no power to make the application which ended in the order complained of; and, secondly, because the building in question had been duly sanctioned.2. Taking the second ground first, we find that in the month of August 1908, sanction was accorded by the District Surveyor, under powers delegated to him by the Chairman, to the erection of a certain building. Subsequently another application was made for sanction to an addition to the building as originally proposed, and this likewise was granted by the District Surveyor. No building operations of any kind were begun till after the second application had been disposed of. The contention of Mr. Stokes on behalf of the Municipality is that the District Surveyor had no authority to grant the sec...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal Jaini Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.172
1. This is a Rule to show cause why an order passed by the Municipal Magistrate for the demolition of a building in Calcutta should not be set aside On two grounds, namely, first, because the Secretary to the Corporation had no power to make the application which ended in the order complained of, and, secondly, because the building in question had been duly sanctioned.2. Taking the second point first, we find that in the month of August 1908, sanction was accorded by the District Surveyor, under powers delegated to him by the chairman, to the erection of a certain building. Subsequently another application was made for sanction to an addition to the building as originally proposed, and this was likewise granted by the District Surveyor. No building operations of any kind were begun till after the second application had been disposed of. The contention of Mr. Stokes on behalf of the Municipality is that the District Surveyor had no authority to grant the second sanction inasmuch as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaik Madhu Vs. Shaik Sahar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.177
1. The question of law, which has been argued in this appeal, is one of some novelty, and relates to the right of a Receiver, appointed under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code; to take possession of lands which have accreted to the original subject-matter of dispute. It appears that on the 11th November 1904, proceedings were commenced under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of a chur in the river Padma, by the Sub-divisional Officer of Munshigunj, Subsequently the case was transferred to the Sub-divisional Officer of Naraingunj for disposal. On the 10th June 1905, the Criminal Court made an order under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with the result that the chur was attached, and a Receiver was appointed in respect thereof. On the 1st July, 1905, one Araf Ali offered the highest bid for the property, and was accepted by the Receiver as the lessee. On the 3rd July, Araf Ali executed a qabtiliat in favour of the Sub-divisional Officer of Narain...
Tag this Judgment!Tringani Dasi Vs. Krishna Lal Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.157
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made by the Court below under Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Counsel who appears to show cause has argued that the Rule ought to be discharged inasmuch as the order is appealable under Section 54 Of the Land Acquisition Act, with the result 'that it is not competent to this Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction tinder Section 115 of the Code of 1908. In support of this contention reliance has been placed upon the cases of Nabin Kali Debi v. Banalata Debi 32 C. 921 : 2 C.L.J. 595; Muhammed Ali Raja Avergal v. Ahammed Ali Raja Avergal 26 M. 287; Shiva Rao v. Nagappa 29 M. 117 and Sheo Rattan Rai v. Mohri 21 A. 354.2. The answer to the question raised turns upon the construction of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides that, subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals from original decrees, an appeal shall lie to the High. Court from the...
Tag this Judgment!Baikuntha Nath Roy Vs. Sheikh Nura and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.196
Chatterjee, J.1. The plaintiff purchased the diluted lands in execution of a decree against one Harihar in 1899 and took delivery of possession but was resisted in the actual possession of the same by the defendants who claim the same under a zari peshgi deed executed by one Kripal Narain in 1892. The defendants in their written statement pleaded that the lands were not the lands of Harihar and the plaintiff had, therefore, no right to the same. The main issues, therefore, were whether the disputed land formed-part of the lands purchased by the plaintiff and whether the defendants held the same under a zari peshgi from Kripal Narain. It appears that Kripal Narain with Harihar and others formed a joint family. Harihar brought a suit for partition in 1888 in which Kripal filed his writteu statement in 1889. Pending the suit the zari peshgi was executed by Kripal Narain who was evidently the managing member of the family before the partition suit which was decreed in 1893, the disputed la...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Jatindra Nath Chowdhury Vs. Sarfaraz Meah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.214
1. The question of law which has been argued in this appeal, is apparently one of first impression, so far as the Courts of this country are concerned, and relates to the right of a landlord to maintain an action for rent of a permanent tenure against his tenants, after a Receiver has been appointed by a Court of competent jurisdiction, in respect of the property over which the rent in arrears constitutes a first charge. The circumstances under which this question arises for decision, are not the subject of controversy between the parties. One Haniff Miah held a putni under the plaintiffs-appellants, created by an instrument dated the 21st November 1882. Haniff died in 1907, and left as his heirs, the eight persons who have been joined as defendants to this suit. On the 25th June 1908, the plaintiffs commenced the present action for recovery of the rents due from April 1905 to April 1908. The plaintiffs further prayed that a Receiver might be appointed to take charge of the defaulting ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Krishna Rai Vs. Raj Krishna Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.259
1. We are called upon in this Rule to determine the true scope of Act XIX of 1841, which was passed for the protection of movable and immovable properties against wrongful possession in cases of succession. The circumstances, which have led to the present litigation, are not the subject of controversy amongst the parties. One Jiban Kumar Boy, a wealthy Hindu, governed by the Dayabhaga Law, and possessed of an estate of considerable value, consisting of both movable and immovable properties, died on the 6th January 1909. He left a widow, Ananga Manjari Dasi and five sons by her, Raj Krishna, Gropi Krishna, Krishna Padu, Radha Krishna and Haripadu. Immediately, upon his death disputes broke out between? his widow and sons, as to the possession of the estate left by him. On the 12th June 1909, Raj Krishna made an application under Act XIX of 1841, alleging that his four brothers and his mother, who were inimically disposed towards him, were endeavouring to deprive him of his rightful shar...
Tag this Judgment!Shamal Dhone Dutt Vs. Lakhimoni Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.323
1. We are invited in this Rule to discharge an order made by the Court below in the course proceedings upon an application for an order (sic), on the basis of a decree nisi mae (sic) Court in the mortgage suit of (sic ) Dutt v. Lakshimoni Debi 36 (sic) Ind. Cas. 553. The suit to enforce the security was commenced on the 19th September 1905. On the 2nd February 1906, the plaintiff mortgagee applied for the appointment of a receiver, and on that date the Court decided that the estate could not meet the cost of a paid receiver and of his establishment. The plaintiff was not particularly anxious to be in possession as a receiver, and one of the defendants strongly opposed his appointment. But the Court was of opinion that the plaintiff would be a suitable person for appointment as receiver; he was thereupon nominated on condition that he should pay the expenses from the income, and deposit the balance in Court, to be available after final disposal of the case. On the-16th February, the nom...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »