Kolkata Court April 1910 Judgments
Baneswar Mukherji Vs. Umesh Chandra Chakrabarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal626
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. In my opinion the construction placed by Mr. Justice Carnduff on the kabuliyat, which forms the basis of this suit, is erroneous. The terms of that document clearly point to the fact that the rent is to be as to part in money and as to part in kind, and this is emphasized by the express provision relating to the delivery of paddy in the month of Pans every year. I think it is impossible to read the document otherwise than as it has been read by the learned Judicial Commissioner. It is quite true that the paddy has a money-value attributed to it; but that is explicable by the desirability of stating that amount for the purpose of fixing the stamp-duty. The learned Judge, from whose decision this appeal is preferred, appears to have been influenced in his construction of the document by a mortgage subsequently executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the original grantor of the mokarrari tenure. But no canon of construction would allow the Court to construe an ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Sukul Vs. Bhela Gazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal709
Woodroffe, J.1. It has been firstly argued that the Court of appeal should have held that the tenancy was an occupancy raiyati holding, and that the tenancy having been in existence and purchased by the Dichits prior to the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act in 1885, Section 22, Clause (2) of that Act did not apply, with the result that there was no merger of the occupancy right. This question, though raised by the grounds of appeal before us, was not raised in the lower Court and cannot be now gone into. There is nothing in the paper book on this point which is sought to be established by reference to a passage in the evidence. But, then, it is said that assuming Section 22 does not apply, and that under Section 22, Clause (2), the occupancy right then existing was extinguished by the transfer of the right of Golak Singh to the Dichits, the lower Appellate Court should have held that by reason of Dichits subsequently continuously holding the land as raiyats for a period of twelve years...
Tag this Judgment!Baneswar Mukherji and anr. Vs. Umesh Chandra Chakrabarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.875
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. In my opinion the construction placed by Mr. Justice Carnduff on the kabuliyat, which forms the basis of this suit, is erroneous. The terms of that document clearly point to the fact that the rent is to be as to part in money and as to part in kind, and this is emphasized by the express provision relating to the delivery of paddy in the month of Pous every year. I think it is impossible to read the document otherwise than as it has been read by the learned Judicial Commissioner. It is quite true that the paddy has a money-value attributed to it; but that is explicable by the desirability of stating that amount for the purpose of fixing the stamp-duty. The learned Judge, from whose decision this appeal is preferred, appears to have been influenced in his construction of the document by a mortgage subsequently executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the original grantor of the mokarrari-tenure. But no canon of construction would allow the Court to construe an ear...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Sukul and ors. Vs. Bhela Gazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.370
Woodroffe, J.1. It has been firstly argued that the Court of Appeal should have held that the tenancy was an occupancy rayati holding and that the tenancy having been in existence and purchased by the Dichits prior to the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act in 1885, Section 22 Clause (2) of that Act did not apply with the result that there, was no merger of the occupancy right. This question, though raised by the grounds of appeal before us, was not raised in the lower Court and cannot be now gone into. There is nothing in the paper-book on this point which is sought to be established by reference to a passage in the evidence. But then it is said that assuming Section 22 does, apply and that under Section 22 Clause (2), the occupancy right then existing was extinguished by the transfer of the right of Goloke Singh to the Dichits, the lower appellate Court should have held that by reason of Dicbits subsequently continuously holding the land as raiyat for a period of 12 years and more from...
Tag this Judgment!Bindeswari Koer Vs. Awadh Behary Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.366
1. In this case a decree was passed on the 12th May 1897 for the partition of certain trees and for the construction of a pucca water-channel by the defendant.2. The first application for execution was made on the 12th May 1900. In the course of that application, there was on the 24th November 1900 an application by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors in which both parties agreed that they would have the matters directed under the decree done in private. Besides there was a prayer by the decree-holder to have his name substituted in place of certain others whose interests had ceased. Upon that application the execution was struck off on the 1st December 1900.3. The next application for execution was made on the 23rd November 1903, that is, just within three years of the application of the 24th November 1900. During the pendency of the second application the parties again entered into a compromise.4. A petition was filed on the 9th April 1904 stating that the trees had been divid...
Tag this Judgment!Mrinalini Dasi and anr. Vs. Abinash Chunder Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.508
1. The question of law which calls for decision in this appeal is one of some novelty, and relates to the right of Hindu reversioners to compel payment into Court of a sum of compensation money withdrawn by a person who had a limited interest in property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of which the claimants are the reversionary heirs. The circumstances which have led to the present litigation are not the subject of controversy between the parties, and maybe briefly narrated. The father of the plaintiffs, Purna Chandra Dutt and the first defendant, Abinash Chandra Dutt, were two brothers, and held their ancestral properties jointly in equal moieties. Purna Chandra died about the year 1890, and left a widow, Nistarini, who is the third defendant in this suit, and two daughters Mrinalini and Saiojini who are the plaintiffs-appellants before us. In 1897, a part of the ancestral estate was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and Rs. 600 was fixed as the compensatio...
Tag this Judgment!Rusi Mendli Vs. Sundar Mendli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal703
Brett and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain lands to which he claimed title by survivorship. It appears that the family to which the plaintiff belongs originally consisted of three uterine brothers and three step-brothers. The uterine brothers were Khedu, father of the plaintiff, Ruttan, and Badan, and the three step-brothers were Rusi, Firinghi and Busla. There was a partition of the family property about twelve or fourteen years ago between these six brothers, and, according to the statement made in the judgment of the Court of first instance, the property was divided into six different shares, the area and boundaries of each share being set out in the award of partition. After this partition the uncles of the plaintiff, namely Ruttan and Badan, who at the time of the partition are said to have been mere boys, continued to Jive with their brother Khedu. After some time Khedu died, and the plaintiff, his...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Vs. MohiuddIn Mirza
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal747
Brett and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. The ancestors of the present appellants held a mortgage, dated the 19th Aghrayan 1305 M. Section (3rd December 1897), executed in their favour by one Rahaman Buksh, the ancestor of the defendants second party, by which the putni mehal Kalughat was hypothecated for payment of a debt. The ancestors of the appellants brought a suit on the mortgage bond to recover the debt, and obtained a decree, and, in execution of that decree, the putni mehal was put up to sale and was purchased by them on the 8th March 1905. The sale was confirmed on the 15th May 1905. Meanwhile, the rent due on the putni by the defendants second party to the defendants first-party, the zemindars, for the year 1312 M. Section had fallen into arrears, and, in consequence, the defendants first party brought the putni to sale under Regulation VIII of 1819 on the 15th May 1905. The putni was sold, and, after deducting the amount due as rent for 1312, there remained a surplus of Rs. 1,011-5 which...
Tag this Judgment!Jogonath and ors. Vs. Syed Mohi-ud-dIn Mirza and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.371
1. The ancestors of the present appellants had a mortgage dated the 19th Aghran 1305 M. S., 3rd December 1897, executed in their favour by one Rahman Bixkhsh, the ancestor of the defendants second party, by which the putni mahal Kalughat was hypothecated for payment of a debt. The ancestors of the appellants brought a suit on the mortgage bond to recover the debt, and obtained a decree, and in execution of that decree, the putni mahal was put up to sale and was purchased by them on the 8th. March 1905. The sale was confirmed on the 15th May 1905. Meanwhile, the rent was due on the putni by the defendants, second party, to the defendants first party. The Zemindars, for the year 1312 M.S. had fallen into arrears and, in consequence, the defendants, first party, brought the putni to sale under Regu-lation VII.I of 1.819 on the 15th May 1905/ The putni was sold and, after deducting the amount due as rent for 1312, there remained a surplus of its. 1,011-5, which was kept in deposit in the n...
Tag this Judgment!Grihi Nath Chowdhury Vs. Baij Nath Ram Marwari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.412
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an ordinary suit to recover a money-claim, and that money-claim had its origin in the price of goods sold and a loan taken, The indebtedness was evidenced by a rukka executed in favour of the plaintiffs by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. There is no doubt as to the liability of these defendants, and the only question now is as to the liability of defendant No. 3. All these three defendants were at one time members of a joint family, but in April 1877, there was a separation. The indebtedness in respect of which the suit is brought arose in 1904, and the rukka was executed on the 2nd April in 'that year. The ground on which the plaintiffs by their plaint sought to bring liability home to defendant No. 3 is expressed in these terms: Though defendant No, 3 is not the executant of the rukka, yet because he too has been benefited by the said loan, therefore, he is bound to pay the debt due to the plaintiffs'. By way of defence it was alleged by de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »