Kolkata Court November 1912 Judgments
Susila Sundari Dasi Vs. Indu Bhusan Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.328
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the lower Appellate Court in an appeal preferred to that Court against an order passed by the Court of first instance on a petition of objection under Section 47 of the present Code, which corresponds to Section 244 of the old Code. It appears that the present respondent brought a suit for recovery of rent for a certain holding against Chandra Kumar Poddar, who was the original holder and against defendant No. 3, the present applicant who was the purchaser of the holding from Chandra Kumar Poddar. The suit was for the recovery of rent, cesses and damages from 1311 to 1313. We understand from the learned Pleaders who have appeared before us that in that suit defendant No. 1 did not appear and that defendant No. 3, the present appellant, appeared and contended that she was not liable for the rent claimed in the suit which had accrued prior to the date of her purchase, that is to say, for the rent due from 1311 up to the end of the first qua...
Tag this Judgment!Fidoi HosseIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal376
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order of the Appellate Court, under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside and the appeal re-heard, on the ground that the District Magistrate had omitted to take into consideration the evidence for the defence.2. We have received the explanation sent to us by the learned District Magistrate, wherein he has admitted that in the appeal before him he did not think it necessary to deal with the evidence adduced by the defence in the case. But he says this was because no reference to that evidence was made by the counsel who appeared for the appellant before him, and the evidence on the part of the defence was practically ignored in the argument. There is no doubt, however, that it was the duty of the Appellate Court to look into that evidence, and after dealing with it to come to a decision. For that reason we think it necessary that the case should go back for...
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Bhusan Hazra Vs. Aswini Comar Samanta and ors.,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1912
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.981
1. We are of opinion that these appeals must succeed, on the simple ground that it is impossible to get behind the statutory bar raised by Section 109 to the rent fixed in proceedings under Section 105 so far as these proceedings have been properly conducted. Even if we accept the contention raised before this Court in the case of Pandab Dowari Das v. Ananda Kishun Chakravarti 7 Ind. Cas. 102 : 14 C.W.N. 897 : 12 C.L.J. 195 there is nothing in that decision which militates against the decision of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Giedit in this very Court reported as Shambu Chandra Hazra v. Purna Chandra Pal 35 C. 176 : 7 C.L.J. 103 : 12 C.W.N. 122. In that case the Chief Justice laid down very clearly that even if the Settlement Officer had gone wrong in deciding the question under Section 106 which did not arise, his decision, so far as it was a decision settling rent could not be interfered with, and on such a point no second appeal can lie. The Court followed this up by reversing t...
Tag this Judgment!Misri Gope Vs. Abdul Latif
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.884
1. This is a Rule on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside, on the ground that the cruelty alleged did not take place in the street or place referred to in Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (XI of 1890) so as to bring the petitioner within the purview of that section.2. It appears that the petitioner tortured his cows by depriving them of water, and that these cows were tied up where the sufferings of the unfortunate animals could be witnessed by persons from the lane.3. In our opinion, it is clear that the offence comes within the Act, and we see no reason to interfere.4. The Rule is accordingly discharged. This order will also govern Revision Cases Nos. 1450 to 1456 of 1912....
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Ali Joardar Vs. Kala Chand Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.654
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, a lady, shebait under her husband's Will, to eject the appellant, the principal defendant, from three jamas which had come into his possession under a sale certificate dated September 1903, which a third party had obtained against defendants Nos. 1 to 6.2. It is extremely difficult to follow the judgment of either of the Courts inasmuch as the parties are wrongly described, the transferee being described as the principal defendant and not numbered and the transferors being Nos. 1 to 6. But this much is clear that by the sale certificate Exhibit B, the whole of these three jamas were transferred to the principal defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff sued the six defendants for rent, but the defendants Nos. 3 to, 5 were exonerated from, the suit for what reason we know not; but it must have been because the Court held they had no interest in the holding, for we find that the whole of the arrears sued for were decreed a...
Tag this Judgment!Rodricks Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal308
Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought against the Secretary of State for India in Council, and the alleged cause of action is malicious prosecution. The suit has been dismissed by Mr. Justice Chaudhuri on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The plaintiff has appealed from this judgment maintaining that there is this jurisdiction. Under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiff is required, among other things, to show the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, and also the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction. There is no allegation in the plaint that satisfies this requirement, and the written statement takes the objection that 'on the face of the plaint it appears that the alleged cause of action arose wholly out of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court, and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit.' Now, it is admitted that no part of the cause of action arose wi...
Tag this Judgment!Rasik Lal Sen and ors. Vs. Krishna Mohan Mandal Tikadar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.249
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of two plots of land. The plot No. 1 was decreed in both Courts, and with that we have nothing to do. The title in plot No. 2 was declared to be in the plaintiff but his prayer for khas possession was rejected. The plaintiff appeals with regard to this point only and pleads that he is entitled to get khas possession from a person who was an under-raiyat on the land without notice. The lower Appellate Court has found that he was bound to treat him as an under-tenant and to give notice.2. It appears that one Debendra Nath Roy was the proprietor of the estate; under him was the tenure-holder, named, Chandra Kumar Sen, and under him again was an under-tenure-holder, a lady of the name of Sarat Sundari Guptan. The occupancy-tenant was the defendant No. 1 in this case and there were two under-raiyats, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who took a registered lease in 1894, from defendant No. 1. That lease had, under the terms of the tenancy, of co...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Prosanna Das and ors. Vs. Bhagaban Mali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.587
1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the learned Special Judge of Backergunge, in which he held that he had no jurisdiction as a Revenue Court to fix a fair rent in respect of lands held by defendants-respondents in the zemindari of the plaintiff-appellant, inasmuch as those tenants were trespassers and the zemindar's only remedy was by the institution of a suit under Section 157 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, in which suit he can either eject the trespassers or have a fair and equitable rent determined by the Court.2. A preliminary objection was raised that there was no second appeal in a case under Section 105 where there was a decision settling rent. But its is obvious in this case there was no decision settling rent, that the Special Judge declined jurisdiction, and the only question before us is whether this appeal should be remanded to the lower Appellate Court to be decided on the merits or whether the learned Judge was right in declining jurisdiction.3. Now, the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kant Bhattacharya Vs. Abdul Gofoor Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.237
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for the establishment of his howla right to the disputed land as well as for the declaration that the rent decree obtained by defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff's vendor, the defendant No. 13, and the proceedings taken but in execution thereof are fraudulent and collusive and inoperative so far as the plaintiff is concerned.2. The defence appears to have been twofold. Although in the issues framed for trial it does not appear precisely what that defence was, nor in the written statement is there any indication of what the main point of defence taken before us and before the Subordinate Judge really is; but we gather from the judgment of the 1st Court that the first defence taken was that the land being admittedly debuttur land, the shebait ought to have been sued in his capacity as trustee for the idol and not in his personal capacity. This point was taken before us but had not been seriously argued. The learned Mun...
Tag this Judgment!Shoshi Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs. Gour Kishore Chakravarti and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.593
Stephen, J.1. In this case, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for rent for six years in respect of certain homestead land. The defendants held the land under a man who was father of one of the plaintiffs and brother of the others. They executed a Kabuliyat in his favour, the period of which has not terminated. The suit was brought after the death of the original lessor and the lower Appellate Court has held that it must fail on the ground that the plaintiffs are not registered proprietors within the meaning of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act (VII of 1876 B. C), and are not entitled to any relief under Section 81 of the same Act. Without considering the question whether the plaintiffs in this case are affected by Section 78, we are of opinion that the Judge has erred in holding that the existence of the written contract does not, affect the provisions of the previous section. The contract is still in existence. The defendants are holding the land under their rights acquired und...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »