Kolkata Court April 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.
Nilmani Gountia Vs. Jogendra Gountia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal694
Brett and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. In support of this appeal, it has first been argued that the lower Appellate Court is wrong in holding that the lambardar is not alone entitled to bring a suit to eject the defendant. It has been argued that as the lambardar is the agent for the purpose of representing the body of proprietors in their dealings with the Government, and as, for that purpose, he has to collect the rents, therefore he must be held to be, as an agent on behalf of the other co-sharers, entitled to bring a suit for ejectment. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces in the case of Ram Ruttan Ram Gopal v. Hira Laxman (1891) 5 C.P.L. Rep. 47 to support the view that the lambardar must be looked upon as the landlord whose consent under Section 61, Clause (2) of the Central Provinces-Tenancy Act of 1898 is necessary to the validity of a transfer of property, and that, as he can by his consent make a transfer valid, so, if he with...
Kishori Mohan Bose Vs. Sheikh Ujir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal610
Lawrence H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This case comes before us by way of second appeal and arises out of a suit brought for recovery of an enhanced rent. The claim was allowed by the Court of first instance, but in the lower Appellate Court it was held that the plaintiffs were only entitled to get the rent and cesses admitted by the defendants. From the decree which followed on that judgment the present appeal is preferred, and it is contended that, having regard to the nature of the enhancement, there was no answer to the landlord's claim. The case has been argued before us with considerable ingenuity by Mr. Sen, and what he contends is that Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act has no application where a money-rent is enhanced by the addition of a rent-in-kind. The basis of that argument is, and has to be, that Section 29 is throughout limited to a money-rent, and that the enhancement on which it places a limit is an enhancement by way of additional money-rent and not by way of an additional r...
Bhaba Sundari Devi Vs. Taira Nasya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.369
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a second appeal preferred by the plaintiff. The only point, with which we are concerned, is his objection that certain documents were improperly excluded. These documents are collection papers said to have been prepared by Hari Mohan Kar, Dhanulla Patwari, Radha Charan Mojumdar and Mohiny Chandra Ganguly. The plaintiff proposed to use these documents in evidence and as he could not call the individuals by whom they had been prepared as witnesses, he tendered them under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was objected to this that these papers could only be used under Section 34 and that in the absence of those by whom they were prepared, the provisions of that section could not be called in aid by the plaintiff. This view has found favour with both the lower Courts, and it seemed to the lower appellate Court that the matter was concluded by the decision of this Court in Mahomed Mahmood v. Safar Ali 11 C. 407. There was also cited to the learned Ju...
Kishori Mohan Bose and ors. Vs. Sheikh Uzir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.335
1. This case comes before us by 'way of second appeal and arises out of a suit brought for recovery of an enhanced rent. The claim was allowed by the Court of first instance; but in the lower appellate Court it was held that the plaintiffs were only entitled to get the rent and cesses admitted by the defendants. From the decree which followed on that judgment, the present appeal is preferred, and it is contended that having regard to the nature of the enhancement there was no answer to the landlord's claim. The case has been argued before us with considerable ingenuity by Mr. Sen, and what he contends is that Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act has no application where a money rent is enhanced by the addition of a rent in kind. The basis of that argument is and has to be that Section 29 is throughout limited to a money rent and that the enhancement on which it places a limit is an enhancement by way of additional money rent and not by way of an additional rent in kind. But this argume...
Nanda Gopal Sinha Rai and ors. Vs. Sreemutty Pareshmoni Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.354
1. This appeal, arises out of a suit brought by the present respondent to recover possession of land, on establishing her right of inheritance thereto together with wasilat.2. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Dhan Kumari, and she claims right to the property in suit through her mother to whom the property was, according to her allegations, made over by gift by her (Dhan Kumari's) father as an absolute estate. Dhan Kumari died leaving her daughter alone surviving her. After her death the property was taken possession of by the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, who are the next heirs to the father of the plaintiff's mother. Their allegation is that the plaintiff has no right to the property in suit under the terms of the gift made to her mother.3. Both the lower Courts have held that the gift made by the father to Dhan Kumari was an absolute gift, and that, therefore, the property passed on the death of Dhan Kumari to the plaintiff as her heir, and have given the plaintiff a decree for the rel...
Munshi Isser and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.415a
1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the order complained of in this petition should not be set aside on the ground that the complaint of the petitioner has not been disposed of according to law, and on the ground that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 190, Criminal Procedure Code, to refuse to take cognisance of the offence.2. The facts are that the first petitioner laid an information stating that certain persons had formed an unlawful assembly and had assaulted the informant and another person. This was investigated by the Police, but the petitioner was dissatisfied with the way in which the Police were conducting the investigation and they complained to the Magistrate that the Police were not doing their duty. The Police reported that the information given by the petitioner was false, and a sanction to prosecute the first petitioner for laying a false information under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, and against the second petitioner fo...
Kokai Sardar Vs. Meher Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1910
Reported in: (1910)ILR37Cal681
Harington and Holmwood, JJ.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Faridpore. He has referred to us an order of the District Magistrate, dated the 8th October last, directing the prosecution of the petitioners, in order that order may be reversed. The grounds on which this Court is applied to are as follows. It appears that one Golam Imam and 19 others were charged with offences under Sections 148, 326 and 302. Three of these persons were placed on their trial and acquitted. Six of the persona alleged, to be implicated in the transaction ran away, and out of these six, five appear now to have been captured and are the petitioners in the present reference, and the ground on which we are asked to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate is this: that the Sessions Judge having disbelieved the evidence in the case brought against The three persons who have been acquitted, and having express an opinion that the facts and circumstances suggested to him a very stron...
Kokai Sardar and ors. Vs. Mehar Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.932
1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Faridpore. He has referred to us an order of the District Magistrate, dated the 8th October last, directing the prosecution of the petitioners in order that that order may be reversed. The grounds on which this Court is applied to are as follows:--It appears that one Golam Imam and 19 others were charged with offences under Sections 148, 326 and 302. Three of these persons were placed on their trial and acquitted. Six of the persons alleged to be implicated in the transaction ran away, and out of these six, five appear now to have been captured and are the petitioners in the present reference, and the ground on which we are asked to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate is this: that the Sessions Judge having disbelieved the evidence in the case brought against the three persons who have been acquitted, and having expressed an opinion that the facts and circumstances suggested to him a very strong doubt as to the tru...
Midnapur Zemindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Sham Lal Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.362
1. The main question, which has been raised in this appeal, is whether the lands held by the defendant who is the respondent before us, in respect of which the plaintiffs-appellants sought to obtain an enhancement of rent, form a tenure or a raiyati-holding. In the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it is stated that this particular tenancy began in 1231 B. S. with a lease of 200 bighas of jungle land, In 1233 B. S. Gopinath Mitter the lessee took settlement of another 160 bighas and in 1251 of another 15 bighas. In 1263 he took a settlement of 411 bighas and after his death his widow got an amalnamah for 1082 bighas. These were amalgamated with another holding. So that in all the lands now held by Gopinath's son amount to 1,311 bighas.2. Both the lower Courts held that the defendant was a raiyat and that the lands held by him constituted a raiyati-holding.3. The plaintiffs have appealed. Section 5 of the Bengal Tenancy Act defines a tenure-holder and a raiyat and Clause 5 of that ...
Upendra Nath Banerjee and anr. Vs. Umesh Chandra Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.346
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs against a preliminary-decree in a suit for partition of joint family properties. The father of the plaintiffs was the uterine brother of the defendant, and it is not disputed that the joint properties are owned by the parties in equal moieties. The defendants resisted the claim substantially on the grounds that the homestead had been previously partitioned, and that the frame of the suit was defective inasmuch as various items of joint properties had been excluded from its scope. It is unnecessary to discuss in detail the second objection because the parties are agreed that all properties which are proved to be joint, must be included within the scope of the litigation. The controversy between the parties has been directed' principally to the first ground. The defendant, in support of his allegation of a previous partition of the homestead, relied upon a deed executed by the parties on the 25th October 1893. The Court of first instance h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »