Kolkata Court August 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.
BipIn Behary Mitter and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Sirkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.760
1. The only question, which has been raised in these appeals, is whether the lower appellate Court erred in law in holding that certain sums which were claimed by the plaintiffs, the present appellants, as abwabs were not recoverable under the law from the defendants respondents. The learned Judge confirmed the judgment of the Court of first instance that these additional items constituted abwabs and that they were not recoverable from the tenants. The qabuliats (agreements), on which the plaintiffs seek to recover the amounts included in their claims, were executed long before the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 came into force and, therefore, the provisions of that Act have no application to the present cases. The leases were mokarari leases and, in those leases, there was an agreement to pay a certain sum as rent and a certain additional sum as zemindary salami. That additional sum, which forms the item described in the plaints as abwab, was kept entirely separate from the rent in the le...
Sheikh Mahomed Tagu and ors. Vs. Choa Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.750
1. The present plaintiff-repondent brought a suit to recover possession of land which, he said, he held from the tenant under an ijara for five years. He alleged that he had been dispossessed of this land by the malik defendants. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, but, on appeal, the lower appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the land from the defendants and has given him a decree for recovery of possession with costs. The malik defendants have appealed and, in support of the appeal, it has been contended that the lease by the tenant to the plaintiff was in contravention of his rights as a tenant and that it amounted to an abandonment of that portion of the holding which he had leased to the plaintiff. In our opinion, this contention cannot be held to be sound. The lease was for a term of five years only and that term had not expired on the date when the present suit was instituted. The law distinctly provides that a ryot has pow...
Somir Jama and anr. Vs. Mahabharat Bakta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.919
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first two defendants in a suit commenced by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of possession of land included in an osat nimhowla. The plaintiff claims to be the purchaser of a nimhowla at a sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the howladar against the nimhowladar and asserts that he has, by service of notices upon the first two defendants under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, annulled the incumbrances held by them. He consequently asks for ejectment of the defendants from the disputed lands. The Courts below have concurrently made a decree in favour of the plaintiff The decision of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed before us on three grounds, namely, first, that the plaintiff is purchaser of only a fourth share in the nimhowla tenure and is, consequently, not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 159 of the Bengal Tenancy Act ; secondly, that the first two defendants are the holders of only o...
Lakshiram Mandal Vs. Sonatun Basar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.775
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made under Rule 9 of Order IX of the Code of 1908. The suit commenced by the plaintiff opposite party was dismissed for default on the 10th March 1909. The judgment was delivered on that date, but the formal order was not drawn up till the 7th April following. Meanwhile with a view to prefer an appeal, the plaintiff had, on the 6th April, applied for copies of the judgment and order, which were delivered to him on the 16th April. On the next day, he lodged his appeal against the order of dismissal for default. This appeal was heard on the 18th September 1909 and was dismissed on the ground that it was incompetent because the order of dismissal for default was not a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of 1908. On the 21st September, 1909, the plaintiff made the present application under Rule 9 of Order IX and prayed that the order of dismissal for default might be set aside and the suit restored. The application was gra...
Debendra Nath Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. Hari Das Bhattacharjee and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.844
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in an action which has been described as one for partition of joint property, but the true object of which is to enable the plaintiffs-respondents to compel the appellant to transfer his share to them at a valuation. The two plaintiffs and the original defendant, who has died during the pendency of this litigation, were three brothers. In a previous suit for partition, their joint properties were divided, except the property now in dispute which, by consent of parties, was allowed to remain joint. This property covers a little more than three cottas ; part of it is covered by a Chandimandab, an Atchalla, a Baitakhana and a room while the remainder is open land. The plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to a two-thirds share of the disputed property, that it is not convenient to have joint possession thereof, and that it is of such a nature that if it is divided into three portions to be allotted to the three co-,sharers, its value woul...
Bali Panda Vs. Jadumani Santra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal284
D. Chatterjee, J.1. Thakur Gopeenath Deb and Thakur Raghunath Deb were the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, the other plaintiffs being the shebaits or marfatdars. The allegation in the case was that the old temple of these Thakurs having been blown down by a storm, they were placed in the temple of the defendants, which was near by Subsequently, on account of a dispute between the shebait-plaintiffs and the defendants, the defendants brought a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands dedicated to these Thakurs, on the ground of their being the shebaits or marfatdars of these Thakurs and the present shebaits-plaintiffs being the pujaries. In that suit one of the principal issues was whether these 'Thakurs were the family Thakurs of the plaintiffs in that case, and it Avas decided that the plaintiffs in that case were not the marfatdars, but that the defendants were the marfatdars of these Thakurs. After that, the shebait-plaintiffs rebuilt the temple of the Thakurs, and wanted to bring ...
Bali Panda and ors. Vs. Jadu Mony Santra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.475
Chatterjee, J.1. Thakur Gopi Nath Deb and Thakur Raghunath Deb were the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, the other plaintiffs being the shebaits or marfatdars. The allegation in the case was that the old temple of these Thakurs having been blown down by a storm, they were placed in the temple of the defendants which was near by. Subsequently on account of a dispute between the shebait-plaintiffs and the defendants, the defendants brought a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands dedicated to these Thakurs on the ground of their being the shebaits or marfatdars of these Thakurs and the present shebait-plaintiffs being the pujaris. In that suit, one of the principal issues was whether these thakurs were the family thakurs of the plaintiffs in that case and it was decided that the plaintiffs in that case were not the marfatdars but that the defendants were the marfatdars of these thakurs. After that, the shebait-plaintiffs re-built the temple of the thakurs and wanted to bring them to th...
Sheikh Abdul Rahman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.587
1. This was a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show causes why the order confiscating the boat, in this petition mentioned, should not be set aside on the ground that the said order was made without giving the owner of the boat an opportunity of being heard.2. The ground on which the rule was issued is quite sufficient to set the order aside; but we would further point out that Section 11 of the Opium Act does not seem to contemplate that every receptacle in the nature of a ship or a house or a carriage in which a small quantity of opium may happen to be found is liable to confiscation; the liability arises from the owner of such conveyance using the conveyance for the purpose of transporting opium. No one can be liable because his servant made use of his private carriage as a depositary for his private stock of opium. There is, therefore, no occasion to call upon the owner to show cause.3. The rule is made absolute, the order is set aside and the boat will be resto...
Mahendra Prosad Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.698
1. We are of opinion that this rule must be made absolute on the single ground that an unpaid apprentice of Government is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. It does not appear that there is evidence of any other offence having been committed by the petitioner.2. The rule is made absolute and the conviction and sentence are set aside.3. The petitioner will be discharged from bail....
Janki Singh and ors. Vs. Debi Nandan Prasad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.772
1. Mouza Tikarampur one anna Pattee Touzi No. 5298 was assessed with a Government revenue of Rs. 256. The four annas co-sharer of this opened a separate account and 12 annas remained as the ijmali or the residuary share paying an annual Government Revenue of Rs. 192: 3 annas out of this 12 annas belonged to plaintiffs Nos. 17 to 20. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 6 claim to bo assignees of parts of this 3 annas and plaintiffs Nos. 7 to 16 are the owners of the other 9 annas. Plaintiffs Nos. 17 to 20 mortgaged their 3 annas in sudbharna, to defendant No. 1 on the 23rd December 1904, the said defendant agreeing to pay Rs. 51-8 per annum for the Government Revenue for the said three annas with cesses. The defendant No. 1 commenced paying the Government Revenue from the January kist of 1905 and in the June kist of 1905 paid Rs. 3-6 in excess of the required amount of Rs. 9 which was entered as on account of Ram Padarat Mahton plaintiff No. 17. There is no evidence to show whether this excess was pai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »