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.
Mohendra NaraIn Singh Vs. Ajodhya Prosad Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.284
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff 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 Bisonath 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; and thirdly, because the person by whom ...
Birendra Kishore Manikya Vs. Akram Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal439
Caspersz, J.1. The plaintiff is the Maharaja of Hill Tipperah. He also owns what the plaint describes as 'a vast zamindari,' that is, Chakla Roshanabad in the British district of Tipperah. The suit giving rise to this second appeal was brought by the Maharaja to have his zamindari title declared in respect of a tank and its banks and for khas possession and mesne profits. In the alternative, plaintiff claimed to have the lands assessed with fair rent. The defence was that the tank had been niskar (rent-free) since the time of the defendant's ancestor in virtue of a sanad chiti, dated the 14th Magh 1259(26th January 1850),granted by the predecessor of the plaintiff.2. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation; and, on appeal, the District Judge has arrived at the same conclusion.3. The plaintiff appeals. This is one of many appeals involving the same question--the right to assess the niskar tanks in the chakla. We have heard the arguments in this appeal and in appea...
Birendra Kishore Manikya Vs. Roshan Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal453
Caspersz, J.1. This is one of the numerous appeals involving the same question, the right claimed by the plaintiff, the Maharaja of Hill Tippera, to assess the niskar (rent-free) tanks situated in his chakla Roshanabad. We have heard the arguments in this appeal and in appeal from Appellate decree Nos. 1270, 1963 and 2515 of 1910, which may be regarded as test cases. The plaintiff's suits have been dismissed in appeal from Appellate decree Nos. 1270 and 1963 of 1910, in which judgment has just been delivered, and this appeal also must fail, The Subordinate Judge has held the suit to be barred, because it was brought more than twelve years after the defendant's assertion of adverse title before the Settlement Officer on the 26th February 1896. In the opinions already expressed the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable, because his right to assess rent on the niskar tanks has not accrued. In the present case (which corresponds with suit No. 399 of 1908 of the first Court) no sanad chiti w...
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Akram Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.513
Caspersz, J.1. The plaintiff is the Maharaja of Hill Tipperah. He also owns what the plaint describes as 'a vast zemindari' that is Chakla Roshanabad in the British District; of Tipperah. The suit giving rise to this second appeal was brought by the Maharaja to have his zemmdari title declared in respect of a tank and its banks and for khas-possession and masne profits. In the alternative, plaintiff claimed to have the lands assessed with fair rent. The defence was that the tank had been niskar (rent-free) since the time of the defendant's ancestor in virtue of a sanad chati dated the 14th Magh 1259 (26th January 1850), granted by the pre-decessor of the plaintiff.2. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation; and, on appeal, the District Judge has arrived at the same conclusion.3. The plaintiff appeals. This is one of many appeals involving the same question, the light to assess the niskar tanks in the Chakla. We have heard the arguments in this appeal and in Mahar...
Asalat Khan and ors. Vs. Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.519
Caspersz, J.1. This is one of the test cases in which the same question has been argued, namely the right claimed by plaintiff, the Maharaja of Hill Tipperah, to assess the niskar (rent-fee) tanks situated in his Chakla Roshanabad. Tne plaintiffs' suits have been dismissed in the other appeals, and the suit giving rise to the present appeal was dismissed by the first Court but the Sub Judge has reversed that decision. Hence the defendants, the niskardars, are the appellants before this Court. In the opinions already expressed in my judgment in Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur v. Akram Ali 13 Ind. Cas. 513 this appeal must succeed.2. The plaintiff's suit is not maintainable because his right to assess rent on the niskar tanks has not accrued It cannot, therefore, be defeated by reason of the twelve years' rule of limitation.3. The Subordinate Judge has discussed the defendant's title as derived from the sanad chitti granted by the plaintiff's predecessor in the year 1866. I atta...
Harbans Sahai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.77
1. The question that arises upon this Rule is whether the statements made by witnesses in the course of a departmental inquiry into the conduct of Police officers are privileged under Sections 123, 124 or 125 of the Evidence Act, when those witnesses ate subsequently examined in a Criminal Court on a charge against the said Police officers of taking illegal gratification, or whether they do not fall within the ordinary rules of evidence as laid down in Sections 155 and 162 of the Evidence Act. It appears to us clear that they are not so privileged, and we are supported in that finding by the decision of the Bombay Court in the case of Empress v. Ramadhan Maharum 2 Bom.L.R. 329. The reasons which are given by the Judges in that case apply exactly to the present case. In that case, the Sessions Judge refused to allow the question to be put to the departmental superior of the accused as to where he got his information, because he was of opinion that the Superintendent was protected by Sec...
Kutbullah Sarkar Vs. Durga Charan Rudra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.424
1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor, from an order of the District Judge permitting the decree-holder to execute his decree of the 14th August 1901. The first execution proceedings began on the 5th September 1904; the second on the 4th January 1908; while the third and present application was made by the decree-holder en the 11th August 1909. On these facts it is urged for the judgment-debtor that the first and second applications to execute the decree were clearly barred. This contention, however, cannot be considered in the absence of findings of fact, and the omission is due to the altitude of the judgment-debtor who refrained from pressing any such objection in the lower Courts. There must have been various proceeding on the successive applications, and certain action taken on the second application has been mentioned at the Bar. If that application was in time, the case with which we are now concerned was properly instituted and can continue.2. The next contention is that ...
Maharajah Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Roshan Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.518
Caspersz, J.1. This is one of the numerous appeals involving the same question the right claimed by the plaintiff, the Maharaja of Hill Tipperah, to assess the niskar (rent free) tanks situated in his Chakla Roshauabid. We have heard the arguments in this appeal and in Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur v. Akram Ali 13 Ind. Cas. 513 and Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur v. Dilwar Ail 13 Ind. Cas. 517 and Asalat Khan v. Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur 13 Ind. Cas. 519 which may be regarded as test cases The plaintiff's suits have been dismissed in Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur v. Akram Ali 13 Ind. Cas. 513 and Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur v. Dilwar Ali 13 Ind. Cas. 517 in which judgment, has just been delivered and this appeal, also, must fail. The Subordinate Judge has held the suit to be barred because it was brought more than tvelve years after the defendant's assertion of adverse title before the Settlement, Officer on the 25th Febru...
Atul Chandra Dutt Vs. Eson Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.423
1. The lower Courts have differed as to the construction of the kabuliat on the basis of which the plaintiff-appellant brought his suit to recover rent. In second appeal it is urged that the construction adapted by the first Court was correct.2. The kabuliat provides: 'That I shall annually pay Rs. 30 and annas 10 in cash and 50 aris of paddy as rent, in instalments as mentioned below and receive dakhilas therefor. If I do not pay the aforesaid paddy rent each year by the months of pans then I shall pay the price thereof Rs. 19-40 with the aforesaid rent. If I do not pay the aforesaid rent then I shall not raise any objection to your realising the arrear rent along with damages and interest by means of any law existing at present or that may be passed in future.3. Reliance is placed on the case of Baneswar Mukerjee v. Umesh Chandra Chakraverty 37 C. 626 : 7 Ind Cas. 875 which was explained in Afar Morole v. Surja Komar Ghoso 12 C.L.J. 649 : 15 C.W.N. 240 : 7 Ind. Cas. 842. We have to a...
Maharajah Birendra Kishore Mankya Bahadur Vs. Dilwar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1912
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.517
Caspersz, J.1. This is one of the many appeals involving the same question--the right claimed by the plaintiff, the Maharaja of Hill Tipperah, to assess the niskar (rent-free) tanks situated in his Chakla Roshanabad. We have heard the arguments in this appeal and in Maharajah Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur v. Akram Ali 13 Ind. Cas. 513; Asalot Khan v. Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur 13 Ind. Cas. 519 and Maharajah Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahodur v. Roshan Khan 13 Ind. Cas. 518 which may be regarded as test cases. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed in appeal in Maharajah Birendra Kishore Muinkya Bahadur v. Akram Ali 13 Ind. Cas. 513 in which judgment has just been delivered and this appeal must fail. The Sub-Judge was of opinion, in disposing of Appeal No. 293 of 1909, from which this second appeal has originated, that the defendants on the 14th May lt96 had clearly asserted a hostile title to the plaintiff, and, that being so, the claim of the plaintiff is time-barred ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »