Kolkata Court July 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.
Kader Sundar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.279
1. The Sessions Judge concurring with the four assessors, has convicted the 29 appellants for belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity and he has sentenced appellants Nos. 2 and 27 to transportation for life and the other appellants to rigorous imprisonment for seven or five years. The trial of the case occupied two months in the Court of Session, but the substantial question for determination is a simple one, namely, whether the approver, Bayan Sandar, has been adequately corroborated in respect of each of the appellants. Six appellants Nos. 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 26 may be excluded at the outset, because the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer intimated during the hearing, that he was unable to support their convictions. There lemain 23 appellants including two (Nos. 2 and 18) who made confessions in the Magistrate's Court.2. The case for the Crown is that the Sandars are a semi-criminal tribe, dwelling in boats, wandering and predatory by ...
A. Whyte Vs. Bhairab Maji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1911
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.872
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for rent, The ease for the plaintiff is that the defendant on the 13th August 1889 executed a kabuliyat in his favour, in which he admitted that he held 7 bighas 15 cottas of land measured with a rashi of 18 inches a cubit at the annual rental of Rs. 12 3 0, He further agreed that, if any excess land was found in his possession, he would pay rent thereof in addition to the aforesaid rental without any objection and neither he nor his heirs would raise any objection thereto. The plaintiff now seeks to recover rent at the rate mentioned in the kabuliyat and also additional rent for excess land, which he alleges is in the occupation of the tenant. The tenant resists the claim 6n two grounds, namely, first, that the kabuliyat was obtained from him by coercion and was not binding on him; and secondly, that there was no excess land in his possession for which he was liable to pay additional rent.2. The Courts below have d...
Sri Rang Behary Lal and ors. Vs. Rancheyya Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.128
1. This appeal is directed against a decree in favour of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof. The case for the plaintiff is, that the disputed property belonged to his maternal grandfather, Manyar Singh. Manyar Singh died many years ago and left a widow Rajrani Koer who died in 1867. According to the plaintiff, Manyar Singh also left two daughters, his mother Gangabati and her sister Sham Dasi, Gangabati died in 1886 and Sham Dasi in 1909. On the 8th May 1907, the plaintiff commenced this action for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the dispute property from the appellants who purchased it from Gangabati and Sham Dasi under a conveyance executed on the 15th January 1890. The defendants resisted the claim on the ground that the transfer by Gangabati and Sham Dasi was for legal necessity, and they had consequently acquired an indefeasible title. The written statement in which this plea of legal ne...
Janki Pershad Singh and ors. Vs. Syed Yahia HossaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.637
1. This appeal is directed against a decree in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of property which admittedly belonged to the first defendant, a parda-nashin Mahomedan lady. The case for the plaintiffs is that a contract was made with them in Junary 1905 for the sale of this property to them at the rate of Rs. 50 per dam. It was agreed at the time that the conveyance should be executed upon payment of the consideration in May following. The plaintiffs alleged that they were unable by reason of mishaps in their family and the advent of plague in that part of the country to perform their part of the contract and the vendor consented to have the conveyance executed in August or September 1905. It is admitted that the conveyance was not so executed, and it was not till the 13th December 1905 that the plaintiffs were in a position to tender a conveyance to the defendant for execution. Meanwhile, negotations appear to have taken place between the vender and the defendants...
Azmat Vs. Bishun Prakas NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1911
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.650
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action in ejectment. The case for the plaintiff-respondent is that he is the proprietor of the estate within which the disputed lands, now in occupation of the defendants, are situated, that they form zerait lands and that consequently he is entitled to recover possession thereof from the defendants. The defendants resisted the claim, mainly on the ground that these lands were not the zerait lands of the proprietor but were part and parcel of the raiyati holding for which they paid rent to the landlord. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge has made a decree in favour of the plaintiff. He his found that the Settlement Khatians, the entries wherein are admittedly against the plaintiff, are not binding upon him, but he has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the land is verait as alleged by him. The Subordinate Judge has held, however, that though the plaintiff has failed to es...
Ram Prasad Narayan Vs. Daud Durzi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1911
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.39
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for rent. The plaintiff claimed to realise rent at the annual rate of Rs. 26-8-9. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that rent was payable by him only at the rate of Rs. 22 13 3. Each side produced a settlement Khatian in support of his claim which bore the same date, namely, the 9th June 1897. The Court was, therefore, called upon to inquire under what circumstances the two Khatians, apparently contradictory, had been made. It trans pired that under sub-Section 1 C. L.J. 310. of Section 104, as it stood before its amendment in 1898, the Record of Rights was finally published on the 9th January 1897, and that so far as the present tenant was concerned, the rent was stated to have been settled at Rs. 22-13 3. Immediately after the final publication, an application appears to have been made on behalf of the landlord to the Assistant Settlement Officer to correct the entry. The Assistant Settlement Officer suggested a r...
Baijnath Prosad Sahu Vs. Raghunath Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.817
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The case for the plaintiff is that the tenancy was created by a kabuliyat, executed on the 4th February 1887, for a term of five years, that after the expiry of the term, the tenant has held over and that the plaintiff is entitled to realise rent at the rate of Rs. 98-2 as for the years 1906 and 1907. The defendant resists the claim mainly on the ground that the rent payable is Rs. 37-8 a year.2. The Court of first instance found that the tenancy had been created under the kabuliyat, that the defendant entered into occupation on the strength thereof, that he held possession of the land for the full term of five years upon payment of rent at the rate mentioned in the kabuliyat and since the expiry of the term, he has held over. In this view, the Court of first instance made a decree in favour of the plaintiff at the rate claimed : upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision. He h...
Debi Das Marwari Vs. the Chairman of Motihari Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.183
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that he is not liable to pay Municipal rates under the Bengal Municipal Act. The plaintiff is a lessee under the Municipality and his contention is that he has been exempted from payment of Municipal rates by the proper authority. The Court of first instance decreed the suit, upon appeal the Subordinate Judge has dismissed it. The Courts below have discussed the question whether the plaintiff has been validly exempted from the payment of Municipal rates by a legally constituted authority. In our opinion, no such question arises or requires consideration. The case for the plaintiff is that his rights are regulated by the contract between the parties. That contract makes him permanent lessee under the Municipality. He is liable thereunder to pay for the use and occupation of the land at a specified rate. That rate, again, is liable to be enhanced after a prescribed period. It is further provided that the land is le...
Digambar Nanda Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1911
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.917
1. The plaintiff in this suit has sought, among other reliefs, for a declaration that he is not a tenure-holder, as he had been described in the Record of Rights but a raiyat.2. The Munsif, during the hearing of the case, thought it desirable in the interests of justice and to prevent, a multiplicity of suits, to add, as defendants, the persons who had been recorded in the Record of Rights as raiyats of the land under the plaintiff as tenure-holder.3. The plaintiff's case is that these persons are mere tenants-at-will, paying rent in kind.4. The plaintiff has obtained from this Court a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why this order should not be set aside. The order was passed on the 5th May 1911, apparently suo motu by the Munsif, although the case had been fixed for the 20th May 1911.5. This, no doubt, was an irregularity, but as the matter has now been fully argued, we do not think that the plaintiff has been prejudiced in any way.6. The only question that remained is wheth...
Prabhu NaraIn Singh Vs. Sundar Pandey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1911
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.447
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for declaration that the rent payable by the plaintiffs to their landlord was Rs. 59-11-3 and not Rs. 80-4-6 a year. The plaintiffs also sought for a declaration that the lands of their tenancy had been misdescribed in previous proceedings and that in fact parcels included therein had been excluded whereas parcels not really included had been mentioned as included in their holdings. The Courts below have made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs which is now assailed on behalf of the defendants on the ground that the question of the rate of rent annually payable by the plaintiffs is res judicata and is not open for consideration in this suit.2. In order to determine the validity of this objection, it is necessary to state that on the 29th October 1906, the rent was settled by a Settlement Officer under Section 10, Sub-section 2, of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Subsequently, on the 23rd December 1907, the landlords defendants obtaine...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »