Kolkata Court September 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.
Gur Pershad Singh Vs. Dhani Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal182
D. Chatterjee and Richardson, JJ.1. The plaintiff's father, Raja Ram Narain Singh, of Khaira, had to receive certain arrears of rent from the defendant: the defendant was unable to pay cash, and gave instead a bond for the amount of the arrear. The Raja then died, and the plaintiff succeeded to the raj, which is an impartible estate. The plaintiff brought this suit on the bond, and the defendant did not contest the suit. But the learned Munsif objected that the suit could not be maintained, as the plaintiff had not taken a certificate of succession. The plaintiff was given some time for filing a certificate, but he did not file one, and the suit was dismissed. On appeal by the plaintiff the learned District Judge has, at his request, made this Reference to us as to whether a certificate of succession was necessary in this case, his own opinion being in favour of the affirmative. It is contended by the plaintiff before us that as his family is governed by the Mitakshara law, he sueceede...
Ram Dayal Giri and anr. Vs. Midnapur Zemindary Co. Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.785
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent under Section 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Ace. The whole Mauzah had been in the lease of one Jasmat Mondal at a quit rent but the interest of. Jasmat was purchased by the Manager of Messrs. Watson and Co., the predecessors-in-interst of the plaintiffs and the settlement with Raghunath Palit was made in the year 1251. The lease was in respect of 376 bighas of land at a rental of Rs. 121-4 per annum: the fall rental was not to be paid until the third year : it was to be Rs. 105-4 in 1251. Rs. 10.9-4 in 1252, Rs. 121-4 in 1253 and there after the tenant was to pay for any additional lands found in his possession at the same rate: no specific rate is mentioned but the rate works out to 5 annas 4 pies per bigha. After the death of Raghunath, his son Joy Gopal Palit entered into a similar contract in 1265 in respect of 444 bighas of land made up of the lands covered by the lease of 1251 plus 71 bighas odd land found in excess on measure...
Nafar Chandra Kundu and ors. Vs. Ratnamala Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.921
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit to enforce a mortgage security executed in favour of their father by one Sasi Bhusan Chakraburty, the husband of the defendant on the 23th January 1892. The loan was re-payable on the 12th April 1893 and as the suit was not commenced till the 7th April 1905, the remedy of the mortgagees is restricted to the mortgaged premises. The question in controversy between the parties is, whether the mortgage is binding upon the property in the hands of the defendant, who claims to have acquired title thereto independently of her husband. It may be assumed for the purposes of the present appeal that the property originally belonged to the father-in-law of the defendant, Earn Kumar Chakravarty. He made a testamentary disposition of his properties on the 30th October 1899 and died on the 19th November 1899. 'Under his Will, his widow, Umasundari, became absolutely entitled to the property in suit. On the 15th October 1891, Uma Sundari made ...
Kumar Gur Pershad Singh Vs. Dhori Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.806
1. The plaintiffs father, Raja Ram Narain Singh of Khaira, had to receive certain arrears of rent from the defendant: the defendant was unable to pay cash and gave instead a bond for the amount of the arrears. The Raja then died and the plaintiff succeeded to the Raj, which is an impartible estate. The plaintiff brought this suit on the bond and the defendant did not contest the suit. But the learned Munsif objected that the suit could not be maintained as the plaintiff had not taken a certificate of succession. The plaintiff was given some time for filing a certificate but the plaintiff did not file one and the suit was dismissed. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge has, at his request, made this reference to us as to whether a certificate of succession was necessary in this case, his own opinion being in favour of the affirmative. It is contended by the plaintiff before us that as his family is governed by the Mitakshara Law, he succeeded by right of survivorship t...
Parmeswar Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1910
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal180
Holmwood and Doss, JJ.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Bhagalpore to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside, or why such other order should not, be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The principal ground on which we are asked to interfere in this case is that the matter does not come within the purview of the criminal law. Upon the findings in the Lower Court it appears to us that this contention must prevail. It is perfectly clear that the Deputy Magistrate in the Court below held that these bamboos belonged to the estate of Rash Behari Lal Mandar, and that the accused was a peada acting solely in his interest. He has altogether dismissed and disbelieved the case that the bamboos stood on the jote land of Bandey Lal. Accepting this finding, it amounts to this that Rash Behari Lal Mandar removed or damaged his own bamboos which were in the possession of the Court of Wards under the Act. The charge of theft has already ...
Joytara Vs. Ram Krishna Seal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.769
1. We are invited in this case to set aside an order of the Court of appeal below made in reversal of an order of the original Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 173 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Maharaja of Tipperah, in execution of a decree against a recorded tenant, Dayamoyi, brought a holding to sale on the 6th September 1905. The property was purchased by one Ramkissen Seal. On the 27th February 1909, one Joytara, the sister of Dayamoyi, made an application to set aside the sale on the ground that the holding originally belonged to her father Jagan Nath Seal, that upon his death it was inherited by his four daughters, Dayamoyi, Joytara, Soraswati and Jasoda, that the decree for rent had been obtained against Dayamoyi alone, and that at the execution sale the holding had been purchased for an insignificant price by Dayamoyi in the name of the ostensible purchaser, Ram Kissen Seal, with a view to extinguish the interests of her sisters. She consequently prayed that the sale mig...
Parmeshwar Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.812
1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Bhagalpore to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside, or why such other order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The principal ground, on which we are asked to interfere in this case, is that the matter does not come within the purview of the Criminal Law. Upon the findings in the lower Court it appears to us that this contention must prevail. It is perfectly clear that the Deputy Magistrate in the Court below held that these bamboos belonged to the estate of Rash Behary Lal Mandar and that the accused was a peadah acting solely in his interest. He has altogether dismissed and disbelieved the case that the bamboos stood on the jote land of Bundey Lal. Accepting this finding it amounts to this : That Rash Behary Lal Mandar removed or damaged his own bamboos, which were in the possession of the Court of Wards under the Act. The charge of theft has already been disposed of by...
Kashi Kinkar Sen Vs. Satyendra Nath Bhadro and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.840
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the first defendant in a suit for arrears of rent. In the original Court, the suit was commenced against three defendants, on the allegation that they held the lands of the tenancy jointly, and were bound to pay rent to the plaintiff for his share in the superior interest at the rate of one rupee five annas per year with cases in four equal installments. It was further alleged that an equal amount was payable to the co-sharer landlords who were joined as the fourth and fifth defendants. The tenants defendants resisted the claim substantially on the ground that rent was payable to the entire body of landlords at the rate of 12 annas 16 gundas a year. Upon these pleadings the issue was raised, what was the amount of rent and cases payable by the defendants to the entire body of landlords? The defendants produced rent receipts for previous years in support of their allegation. The plaintiff, on the other hand, produced a road-cross ret urn purporting to h...
Afar Alias Godai Morol and ors. Vs. Surja Kumar Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.842
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for rent. The tenancy was created by a lease executed on the 5th April 1885. The contract provided that Rs. 11-3 a year was to be paid by the tenant for 12 bighas of land 3 aris of paddy on account of another 4 bighas of laud and Rs. 3 on account of costs. In substance, therefore, the rent was payable partly in cash and partly in kind. The lease further provided that if the tenant neglected to pay the fixed rent and paddy, the landlord would be entitled to realise amicably or by action at law Rs. 12 as the price of the paddy and Rs. 11-3 as the cash rent and Rs. 3 the amount of costs, in all Rs. 26 3. There were also provisions for payment of interest on overdue instalments to which special reference is not needed ft r our present purposes.2. The plaintiffs have sued to recover rent for the years 1312 and 1313 and they claim the price of the paddy at the market rate. The defendants resisted the claim on the ground that they wer...
Jagadish Chandra Sanyal and ors. Vs. Lal Mohan Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.864
1. The subject-matter of the two litigations, which have given rise to the appeals now before us, is a five-sixth share of a tract of 850 bighas of land in the Sunderbans. The plaintiffs in one of three suits claim title to a one-half share of this tract as settlement-holders under Government. The plaintiffs in the other suits claim a similar title to a third share. The holders of the remaining one-sixth share are party defendants, but they are not really interested in any way in the controversy between the plaintiffs and the contesting defendants. The case for the plaintiffs-respondents in these appeals is that in September 1898, that is, nearly seven years before the commencement of these suits on the 11th May 1905, they and their sub-lessees were unlawfully ejected from the disputed lands by some of the defendants who claim title as tenants under the second defendant. The answer of the contesting defendants to the claim is that in 1888 the plaintiffs or their predecessors granted a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »