Kolkata Court January 1912 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.
Parbatty Debya Vs. Mathura Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.453
Harington, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for enhancement of rent has been dismissed by both the Court of first instance and the lower Appellate Court. The facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant are howladars, the plaintiff having six-annas of the howla and the defendants ten-annas. The defendants took the ' undivided six-annas of the howla from the plaintiff as his tenants and it is in respect of this undivided six-annas of the howla that the plaintiff seeks to obtain an enhancement of the rent. The Munsif and the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff was not, in respect of this undivided six annas, the landlord of a holding held at a money-rent by an occupancy-ryot within the terms of Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and on that ground, amongst others, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.2. Now, on behalf of the appellant, it is contended, first, that this issue has been previously determined in favour of the plaintiff and,...
Sarjug Prosad NaraIn Singh Vs. Ajodhya Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.863
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the plaintiff in a suit for rent. The controversy between the parties relates to the rate of rent annually payable. This question, the plaintiff-appellant contends, is res judicata by reason of the decision in a prior suit between the parties. The defendants-respondents urge on the other hand that the question is res judicata by reason of the decree of the Settlement Officer in a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The District Judge has held that the decision of the Settlement Officer does not operate as res judicata, whereas the decision in the previous suit for rent is conclusive between the parties. Two questions, therefore, require consideration in this appeal, namely first, what is the effect of the decree of the Settlement Officer, and, secondly, what is the effect of the decision in the rent suit.2. The previous suit for rent was instituted in the year 1900 for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1897 to 1900. The original ...
Sarat Chandra Ghose Vs. Shyam Chand Singh Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal663
Richard Harington and Asutosh Mookerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action for rent. The sole point in controversy between the parties is, whether rent is payable at the rate of Rs. 6 a year as alleged by the plaintiffs, or Rs. 5 a year as alleged by the defendant.2. The defendant purchased the holding in 1895 from the original tenant. In 1906, in the course of another litigation between the present parties, which did not include the property now in dispute, a petition of compromise was filed. By that compromise the plaintiffs undertook to recognise the defendant as their tenant, although in their view he had purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding. The plaintiffs further gave up their claim to payment ot selami for the recognition; but it was mutually agreed that in addition to Rs. 5, which was the rent payable by the original tenant, the defendant should pay an additional sum of Re. 1 a year. The plaintiffs now seek to recover rent from the defen...
Sarat Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Sham Chand Singh Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.701
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action for rent. The sole point in controversy between the parties is whether rent is payable at the rate of Rs. 6 a year as alleged by the plaintiffs or Rs. 5 a year as alleged by the defendant.2. The defendant purchased the holding in 1895 from the original tenant. In 1906, in the course of another litigation between the present parties, which did not include the property now in dispute, a petition of compromise was filed. By that compromise, the plaintiffs undertook to recognize the defendant as their tenant although in their view he had purchased a non-transferable occupancy-holding. The plaintiffs further gave up their claim to payment of selami for the recognition; but it was naturally agreed that in addition to Rs. 5, which was the rent payable by the original tenant, the defendant should pay an additional sum of Re. 1 a year. The plaintiffs now seek to recover rent from the defendant on this footing. His answer is threefold...
Lala Jatadhari Lal Vs. Shah Shamsul Bari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.713
1. These Rules have been obtained by the plaintiff in two suits for rent of two houses in the town of Gaya, claimed by him as owner This case is that the de-fendant took a lease of these two houses from him and agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 20 and Rs. 5 a month respectively. The plaintiff seeks to recover arrears and also claims interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 75 per cent. per annum. The defendant urges that he is liable to pay rent only at the rate of Rs. 20 for the two houses taken together and that as there was a valid tender of rent he is not liable for interest. The Small Cause Court Judge has made a decree in favour of the plaintiff for rent at the rate of Rs. 20 a month for the two houses and has disallowed the claim for interest and costs.2. On behalf of the plaintiff that decision has been assailed on the ground that the learned Judge has, for erroneous reasons, refused to give effect to the consent decree made between the parties in a previous suit for rent and ej...
Anath Nath Dey Vs. Mohendra Nath Srimoni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.488a
1. This was a Rule calling on the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why there should not he a farther inquiry into this case inasmuch as there was no summons under Section 500, Indian Penal Code. Process was issued under Section 506 and the trial took place under that section and the accused has been discharged for an offence under Section 500; the proceedings are, therefore, without jurisdiction.2. The learned Magistrate in his explanation says that the issue of process under Section 5C6 was a lapses calami; he tried the case as one under Section 500 and the evidence placed before the Court was entirely evidence in support of a case under that section. But we find that at law at any rate that cannot be so, because the offence complained of as set out in the indictment is criminally intimidating the complainant on or about the 14th June 1911, in Calcutta, Section 506, Indian Penal Code, and that was the offence to which the plea of the accused ought to have been taken. Apparent...
Ganesh Prosad Bhagat Vs. Sakhina Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.7
1. In this case the appellant is a decree-holder. The respondent is a lady who became the representative of the judgment-debtor pending an appeal. The suit in which these parties were engaged was a mortgage suit in which certain premises cal. led Taziakhana now in dispute were affected. The plaintiff, the present appellant, obtained a mortgage-decree against the mortgagor. After an appeal was filed, the defendant died and his widow the present respondent was substituted in his place. She now puts forward a claim in the execution proceedings under the decree that she is entitled to the property independently of her husband for whom she was substituted, and under a title derived from her father and her uncle, and she prays that the premises in Question should be exempted from sale in execution. It is questioned under what section this claim is instituted. But it is argued on her behalf that it is a claim under Section 241 of the old Code or under Section 47 of the present; and indeed it ...
Sewdeo NaraIn Singh Vs. Ajodhya Prosad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal1005
Asutosh Mookerjee and Carnduff, JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The substantial question in controversy between the parties relates to the character of the holding, whether it is a holding at a money-rent as the tenants allege or at a produce rent as the landlords contend. The Courts below have concurrently decided this question in favour of the tenants. That decision has been attacked in this Court as erroneous in law, because relevant evidence has been excluded. The evidence in question is a road-cess return filed in 1896 by a ticcadar of the property, by name Biswanath Singh. The learned vakil for the appellant has contended that the road-cess return is admissible in evidence--first, because it was used in evidence against the plaintiffs by the defendants in another suit for declaration of title; secondly, because Section 95 of the Bengal Cess Act of 1880 does not present a bar to the admission of the road-cess return; a...
Rani Shashibala Debi Vs. Rani Sarat Kamini Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.49
1. The plaintiff purchased a 2-annas 13-gandas odd share in a zemindari (Pargana Taherpur) in the year 1893. She brought a suit for rent. No 620 of 1899, against the defendants as patnidars of Sundery Mouzas in the Pergana and obtained a decree on certain terms. She again brought another rent suit No. 874 of 1904, for the arrears for the years 1307 to 1310, and again obtained a decree on the same terms, namely, that she could not hold the defendants personally liable except for any surplus not realised from the sale of the putni, and that, so long as the persons then in possession of the putni did not get themselves registered in her sheresta, she was to bring suits for arrears against the defendants and obtain decrees in similar terms. In execution of the later decree of 1904, the plaintiff purchased the putni on the 21st of November 1905; the sale being confirmed on the 22nd of December 1905. The present suit was then brought by the plaintiff for the arrears due previous to the confi...
Sadhan Sardar and anr. Vs. Lakan Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.255
1. This is an appeal on be-half of the defendants in an action in ejectment. The subject-matter of the litigation is an occupancy-holding which was sold in execution of a money-decree on the 15th May 1893. The sale was duly confirmed and the purchaser obtained possession. He subsequently granted a permanent lease to the plaintiffs-respondents on the 15th April 1896. The case for the plaintiffs is that they also obtained possession but were later on evicted by the appellants. The defendants resist the claim on the ground that the sale, which is the foundation of the title of the plaintiffs, was reversed on the 25th August 1906 and that consequently the plaintiffs have no enforceable title as against them. This defence has been overruled by the Court below and, in our opinion, rightly. It is clear that as the purchaser alone was made a party to the proceedings for reversal of the sale after he had granted a permanent lease in favour of the respondents, they are not bound by the order whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »