Kolkata Court June 1910 Judgments
Ram Chandra Roy and ors. Vs. Girish Chandra Panjah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.15
Chatterjee, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit for rent in 1898 in respect of certain plots of land said to be the mal lands of their mouzah Narainpur. The defendants denied that the lands were the mal lands of the plaintiff's mahal; they denied that they were the tenants of the plaintiffs and asserted that the lands were their lakheraj. The Court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not made out but in arriving at that conclusion held that the lands were not the mal of the plaintiffs, but the lakheraj of the defendants. The plaintiffs brought this title suit for a declaration of their mal rights and for eviction of the defendants on the ground of their having denied the title of their landlords2. The Court of first instance decreed the suit in full and the lower appellate Court confirmed the said decree with a slight modification.3. The defendants appeal and on their behalf four points have been pressed upon me:(1). That the plea of limitation was expressly taken by th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohun Lal Babu Vs. Udai NaraIn Bhaduri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.2
1. The defendant No. 1 was a putnidar. His putni was let out in darputni to darputnidars, who were in the habit of paying the putni rent to the zemindar under some arrangement with the putnidar. They did not, however, pay the putni rent for the Jaista kist of 1313 and the putni mahal was advertised for sale on the 15th May 1906. The defendant No. 1, who had for several years past dealings with the Mahajani Firm of the plaintiff, and defendants Nos. 2 to 8 approached defendant No. 9 who was the head gomashtha of the Firm and after certain fruitless negotiations entered into a contract with him for the purchase of the putni at the Regulation Sale and a re-conveyance to defendant No. 1 on receipt of the purchase-money with interest at 12 per cent, per annum plus a remuneration of one thousand rupees. The putni was actually sold and purchased by defendant No. 10, another gomastha of the plaintiff's Firm for Rs. 7,000. The plaintiff took a release from defendant No. 10 stating that the purc...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Mohan Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Mayatunnessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.9
1. The substantial question in controversy in this appeal relates to the propriety of an order made by the Court below for revocation of probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by one Arman Khan on the 13th June 1894. Arman Khan died on the 3rd August 1894. On the 12th September following an application for probate was presented by his son, Mamtaz Ali Khan. The order for grant of probate was made on the 3rd November 1894, and the probate was actually issued on the 8th December 1894. On the 26th January 1896, Mamtaz executed a mortgage of a considerable portion of the estate of his father in favour of certain persons who are the appellants before this Court. The mortgagees sued to enforce their security and obtained a decree on the 6th December 1898. The sale in execution took place on the 16th May 1899, when the mortgagees purchased the property. Since the grant of probate, applications have been made, one after another, by the sons and daughters of Arman for revocation of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Maksud Mahi Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.90
Woodroffe, J.1. Section 6 of Regulation I of 1886 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, Chapter II, provides that no right of any description shall be deemed to have been, or shall be, acquired by any person over any land to which this Chapter applies, except the rights that are mentioned in Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d). In the lower appellate Court the argument appears to have been that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) did not apply, but that Clause (d) did. The learned District Judge held that, Clause (d) did not apply, as is, in fact, the case. Here, however, it has been contended that the portion of the section which applies is the last portion of Section 6(a), namely, the words 'other rights acquired in manner provided by this Regulation.' Then, it is said that the right which has been acquired in the manner provided 'by this Regulation' is a right which is conferred on the public by virtue of Rule 80, Clause (i) framed by the Chief Commissioner, which lays down that, 'should more t...
Tag this Judgment!Rukminimayi Dasi Vs. Paran Chandra Bhera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal341
Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order made by the Court below, under Order XLI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, read with Section 2 of the Code. The appellant objected to proceedings in execution of a decree made against him. His objection was overruled on the merits in the Court of first instance on the 2nd March 1909. This order was clearly a decree, because it was an order made under Section 47 of the Code. The appellant then appealed to the District Judge. When the appeal was called on for hearing, on the 3rd May 1909, his pleader intimated to the Court that he had no instruction. The appeal was consequently dismissed. He subsequently made an application to set aside this order, under Rule 19 of Order XLI. The learned Judge, however, refused to re-admit the appeal. Up to the present time, no appeal has been preferred against the order of refusal. We are now concerned, therefore, with the appeal directed against the order of 3rd May 1909. A...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Das Mukherjee Vs. Nritya Gopal Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.1a
1. The order which has been passed by the District Judge in this case is not only contrary to law as laid down in Section 23 of the Probate and Administration Act but a precisely similar order was only the other day set aside by a Bench of this Court in Durga Das Misser v. Radha Raman Misser 7 Ind. Cas. 1. This was an appeal from the same Judge and the order was in almost identical terms; and it was held that the Court below was wrong in refusing the application on the ground that there was a dispute as to whether the petitioner was the heir or not, and it was not for the Probate Court to decide whether the property was left by the deceased or not.2. Now in this case the objector denies that the applicant is the heir of the deceased and also asserts that he left no assets, and those are two questions of fact which the lower Court has got to decide. It is first to be decided whether the deceased has left any estate at all. Then it does not matter what estate is left, and if he decides t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahananda Roy Vs. Srish Chandra Tewari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.10
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Purulia sitting as Special Judge in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 by which he has awarded a portion of the compensation to one Chandra Sekhar Tewari and others who joined in the proceeding for the first time in the Court of the Special Judge and did not apply to the Collector for any order of reference. It is settled law that under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to deal with objections except those which are made by persons who were parties to proceedings before the Collector, or who have since within six months applied to the Collector to make a supplementary reference in their case. This view of the law has been extended in the case of Prabal Chandra Mukerjee v. Raja Peary Mohan Mukerjee 12 C.W.N. 987 to Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, and it is obvious, on a perusal of Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, the first two Sections in Par...
Tag this Judgment!Tohra Bibi and anr. Vs. Zabeda Khatoon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.75
1. The substantial question of law, which calls for decision in this appeal, is one of novelty, and our attention has not been drawn to any judicial decision which covers it precisely. The circumstances, under which the question arises for decision, are not disputed. One Haniff Meah, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, is alleged to have carried on a hide business in partnership with the predecessor of the plaintiffs. The case for the plaintiffs is that Haniff was the managing partner that the assets were under his control, and that from the profits of the partnership business, not only had savings been made but purchases effected of valuable immovable properties. Haniff died on the 28th January 1908, and left as his heirs the persons who have been joined as defendants to this suit. On the 8th June 1908, the plaintiffs commenced the present action to wind up the partnership business, to accounts from the representatives of the managing partner to ascertain and distribute the...
Tag this Judgment!Pandab Dowari Das and ors. Vs. Ananda Kishun Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.102
1. The substantial question of law, which we are invited to decide in this appeal, relates to the true effect of Section 109 comprised in Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 as amended by Act III of 1898 B.C. and as it stood before the charges made by the Eastern Bengal and Assam Tenancy Amendment Act of 1908 came into force. The Court of appeal below, in reversal of the decision of the Court of first instance, has held that the effect of Section 109 is to bar all suits in Civil Court for declaration that entries made in a record-of-rights finally published under Section 103A, are erroneous, when such publication has been followed by an application by the landlord under Section 105 for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of the land entered in the record as held by the tenants. The circumstances under which this question arises for decision are not disputed, and are indeed all matters of record. The record-of-rights was finally published on the 13th December 1904; ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Chandra Singh Vs. Chandra Mohan Bandopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.140
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has given rise to these appeals is an inland sheet of water known as Beel Sonadanga in the deserted bed of the river Bhagirathi. The plaintiff, who is the proprietor of Pergana Bagowan, claims the disputed property as situated within the ambit of his estate. His case is that in 1862 his predecessor-in-interest sued for recovery of possession of this property, but as it was found that the predecessors of the defendants had at that time a right of fishery therein, the suit was dismissed [Pertab Chunder v. Unoda Persaud (1863) Sevestre 754. He now asserts that since then the condition of things in the locality has changed and the beel has been completely isolated from the river so as no longer to form an adjunct or armlet thereof in any sense. Accordingly, he prays for a declaration that the defendants have lost the right of fishery found in their favour in the previous litigation, and that he is entitled to recover possession of the soil as w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »