Kolkata Court February 1911 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.
Sibu Sant Vs. Netai Charan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.806
1. This was a suit for recovery of bhag dhan and paddy, or the price thereof (Rs. 99), from the defendant on the basis of a kabuliat for the year 1313.2. The defence was that the plaintiff had no right to the lands; that he was the benamidar for one Kumeda Dasi, his daughter, who was the real owner; that the bhag dhan and paddy for 1313 had been delivered to Kumeda Dasi, and that the produce and the price, as claimed in the plaint were excessive.3. The issues settled in the first Court were: first, whether the plaintiff is a mere benamidar for Kumeda Dasi; secondly, if so, whether the plaintiff can claim rent, and, thirdly, whether the amount of the produce and the prices claimed are excessive.4. The Munsif found that all the documents relating to the property were found to be in the possession of the plaintiff's daughter who had been examined and had deposed, as he says, in a most straightforward manner, to the effect that she had purchased the properties in her father's name. The pla...
Baroda Prosad Roy Chowdhury Vs. Tarak Nath Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.557
Coxe, J.1. The only question that has been argued in this case is whether the evidence accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge justifies his conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant recognised the defendant's tenancy.2. It was held in the case of Deb Narain Dutt v. Baidya Math Madak Napit 2 Ind. Cas. 148 : 14 C.W.N. 68 that this is a question of law and can be dealt with in second appeal.3. The evidence upon which the learned Subordinate Judge relied may be divided into three portions. The first consists of rent receipts, in the great majority of which the defendant is described as marfatdar. It appears that the original tenant was one Nitai Bairagi who died sometime before 1881. The defendant, Tarak Nath Mandal, purchased from Nitai's widow in 1881, and thereafter appears to have paid rents and obtained receipts in which Nitai Bairagi was mentioned as the real tenant and he himself as marfatdar. If the case depended on these receipts I should have been strongly inclined to accept the...
Natabar Jana Vs. Rudra NaraIn Maiti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.625
Coxe, J.1. The land in suit in this case was originally in the tenancy of one Madhu Bhuinya. It appears that one Tara Prosad Pal, who was at one time the ijaradar of the mahal in which the land lies, brought a suit for rent against Madhu, obtained a decree and sold the holding. At the sale the holding was purchased by the plaintiff. That was in 1890. Many years after that another suit was brought for rent against the same Madhu Bhuinya and the property was purchased in the execution sale by the first defendant, the plaintiff's case was that this second decree and sale were fraudulent; that he was all along the tenant of the land which he had sublet to defendant No. 3; that he brought a suit against defendant No. 3 for rent in which defendant No. 3 repudiated the relationship of landlord and tenant. The suit was, therefore, dismissed and on inquiry the plaintiff came to know of this fraudulent decree and sale and that defendant No. 1 had purchased the holding. Defendant No 3 claims to h...
In Re: Makhan Lall Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.916
Harington, J.1. Ordered, grant of Letters of Administration to the petitioner....
Kali Prasanna Basu Roy Choudry and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.916a
D. Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioners in this case are two brothers. They admittedly belong to a most respectable family of zemindars--the Basu Choudhuris of Bohor. They are both legal practitioners, the elder Kali Prasanna having extensive criminal practice at Munshigunj where he mostly resides, the younger Kali Kumar mostly living at Bohor, the family residence and looking after the family properties. The Bohor family has now split up by successive partitions and the several branches have been admittedly at logger-heads. The members of several branches have made a common cause against the accused and supported the prosecution by their evidence. The petitioners had special enmity with Rai Abhai Charan Mitra Bahadur, a retired Military Contractor of great wealth, and the learned Magistrate says 'the struggle with Rai Abhai Mitra Bahadur, over the chur lands has been long and bitter, and the Rai Bahadur's influence is plainly visible in the present case * * The police-officers, especially...
Kumud Bandho Das Gupta, Chairman of the Santipur Municipality Vs. Kish ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.562
Coxe, J.1. These were suits against the Chairman of the Santipur Municipality for recovery of certain portions of a piece of land called Rath Saran and for damages. The suits were decreed by the Munsif and partially decreed by the Subordinate Judge in appeal.2. The defendant has appealed to this Court. The first point taken is that on the facts found by the Subordinate Judge that officer should have held that the lands in suit had vested in the Municipality. Reference is made to Section 30 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884. That section runs as follows All roads including the soil and all bridges, tanks, ghats, wells, channels and drains in any Municipality (not being private property and not being maintained by Government or at the public expense) * * * shall vest in the Commissioners.' It is argued that the words in parenthesis refer only to bridges, tanks &c.; and not to the words 'All roads including the soil.' With this contention I agree. It appears to me that if the words in par...
Namuna Bibi Vs. Rosha Miah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1911
Reported in: (1911)ILR38Cal482
Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order of the lower Appellate Court affirming that of the Munsif in certain execution proceedings. The sole point for determination is whether at the date of the decree-holder's last application for sale, dated 25th March 1909, the property sought to be sold was under attachment.2. The facts are as follows: In 1906, the decree-holder obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtor and, in execution attached and advertised for sale the taluk now in question. The judgment-debtor raised objections and proceedings took place which delayed matters for two years. It is unnecessary to particularise those proceedings as they have no bearing on the present case. On 4th April 1908, the decree-holder again applied for execution and asked for sale of the taluk (Execution Case, No. 464 of 1908). The judgment-debtor raised an objection that there was no subsisting attachment. This question was fought out in Miscellaneous Case, No. 1...
Syed Abdul Latif Meah Vs. Amanaddi Patwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.539
1. The plaintiff-respondent sued the tenant-defendant for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a jama held by him under a patni which the plaintiff held under some of the proprietors of taluk Kalika Prosad Mozumdar.2. The plaintiff alleged that the taluk was privately partitioned long ago into three shares, one of them being called Jagat Chandra Mozumdar, and that he obtained a patni in respect of one half of a village included within mudafat Jagat Chandra Mozumdar from one Mahomed Gazi, and 1/6th share from two other proprietors, and was in possession of the entire land, of which the rent was sued for as included in the 3/2rds share of the village taken by him in patni.3. The defence was that there was no regular partition among the proprietors; but that there was a subsequent Collectorate Butwara, under which the lands, for which the rent was claimed, were allotted to Latif Meah and others, some of the heirs of Mahomed Gazi, who were entitled to the rent for the period subsequen...
Nomuna Bibi Vs. Roshun Meah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.558
Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against an order of the lower Appellate Court affirming that of the Munsif in certain execution proceedings. The sole point for determination is whether at the date of the decree-holder's last application for sale, dated 25th March 1909, the property sought to be sold was under attachment.2. The facts are as follows. In 1906 the decree-holder obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtor and in execution attached and advertised for sale the taluk now in question. The judgment-debtor raised objections and proceedings took place which delayed matters for two years. It is unnecessary to particularise those proceedings as they have no bearing on the present case. On 4th April 1908, the decree-holder again applied for execution and asked for sale of the taluk (Execution Case No. 464 of 1908). The judgment-debtor raised an objection that there was no subsisting attachment. This question was fought out in Miscellaneous Case No. 190 o...
Banko Behary Das and anr. Vs. Krishna Chandra Bhowmik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.528
1. Two questions have been raised in this appeal. The first is whether a lease of land on which a boraj or betel leaf plantations have been made is a protected interest within the meaning of Section 160 Clause (c) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the second whether the words 'date of sale' in Section 167 of the Act mean the date on which the sale is held or the date on which the sale is confirmed.2. With regard to the first question, it is urged that the word plantations' is governed by the word 'permanent' in Section 160 Clause (c) and that betel leaf cultivation cannot be called a plantation which implies permanency in the plant and that betel leaf does not stand on a different footing from other vegetables.3. I do not think that the word 'permanent' governs the word 'plantations' in the section. If it applies to 'plantations,' it would equally apply to the words which follow viz.,'tanks, canals, places of worship or burning or burying grounds'. But it seems that the word 'permanent' i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »