Kolkata Court December 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.
Ramon Mohan Roy Vs. Sheikh Kalimuddi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.682
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs zemindars to eject the defendant, a purchaser of a portion of their ryot's holding which is not transferable by custom. The plaintiffs alleged that in December 1906, the original tenant, Tarini Prosad Bhaumik, had surrendered the portion in question to the landlord and that he sold this very portion to the defendant in February 1907. The defendants alleged that the zemindar had fixed rates of nazar by notification which on the rulings of this Court constituted a valid custom of transfer.2. Both these points have been found against them on the facts in the lower Court and we need not deal with the defendants' case of custom as that is the subject of appeals by defendants in other cases relating to the same zemindari but no cross-appeal has been filed in this suit.3. The plaintiff falls back upon a kabuliat, executed in his favour by Tarini Prosad Bhaumik on the 10th December 1907, that is, eleven days before he filed t...
Eastern Mortgage and Agency Co. Ld. Vs. Purna Chandra Sarbagna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal510
Lawrence H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. and N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This is an application by way of a petition to the Court under Order XLV, ride 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by one desiring to appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that the application is out of time, and in support of this it is argued that Clause (2) of Section 12 of the new Limitation Act does not apply to an application for a certificate under Order XLV of the Code. But the answer to this is furnished by the phraseology of Article 179 of the first Schedule of the Limitation Act, which describes an application of this kind as an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It is manifest, therefore, that Clause (2) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act does apply to applications such as the present, and the objection fails.3. As the decree from which it is sought to appeal is one of reversal, the only question is whether the amount or value of the subject-matte...
Nourjani Sardar Vs. Bimala Sundari Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.87
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for rent valued at Rs. 22. A preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lay, bat we find that in both the Courts, an issue was raised as to the amount of the annual rent and it was decided that the annual rent was Rs. 12. It is sought to be argued, on the authority of the case in Baidyanath Bahara v. Dhon Krishna Sirkar 5 C.W.N. 515 that there must be some contest upon the point, but the law is perfectly clear and so is that decision, that it is only necessary that the Court should have decided the annual rate of rent, whether directly or incidentally. In this case a direct issue was raised, so that there can be no doubt about the right of appeal.2. The argument of the learned Doctor, who appeared for the appellant, raised what is a new point in this country, although it was pointed out as long ago as 1881 by Mr. Justice Field in Lodai Mollah v. Kally Dass Roy 8 C. 238; 10 C.L.R. 581 that such a defence might be taken to a rent suit in Ben...
Baikunta Nath Misra Vs. Laboo Nag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.273
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment, his suit having been dismissed by both the Courts below. It appears that the tenant of the holding in question, which is governed by the provisions of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act XL of 1898, before 1905 sold half the share of his holding to the present defendants. On 8th May 1907, the tenant mortgaged the other half of his share to one Manikram with possession. The present plaintiff who is the landlord applied in 1908, under Section 47 of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, for possession of the land. He was given a decree on 31st October 1908 in respect of the mortgaged moiety. As to the moiety which had been sold, it was held that his application was oat of time, having been made more than two years after the sale. On 17th August 1909, he filed the present suit in the Munsif's Court for precisely the same relief as to the moiety which was sold., The Munsif dismissed the suit on other grounds than that taken by the lo...
Gopal Chandra Deb Goswami and ors. Vs. Padmapani Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.814
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises relates to a dispute regarding what is known as a kheraj estate in Assam, that is, revenue paying estate. The plaintiffs and defendants derived title from a common ancestor who lived some 130 years ago. He possessed several lakhar or nisf-kheraj estates, and he also had (sic) venue paying estate of 78 bighas which is(sic) in dispute. The plaintiffs are found by (sic) Courts to have been holding 29 bighas, that is, almost 2/5th of this land in a demarcated plot for at least 100 years. Their possession has been recognised in the Cadastral Survey, pattas have been granted and they have had to go to Court to have their title declared because the defendants went to the Revenue Officer and claimed to make a partition under which the estate would be divided into four and the plaintiff's share would only be one fourth.2. Now the facts in this case are all found in the plaintiffs' favour by the Judge in the lower Appellate Court. He found that ...
MofizuddIn Sardar Vs. Lakhan Bairagi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.254
Cecil Brett, J.1. These two Rules have been issued in respect of judgments and decrees passed in two suits brought by the petitioner against the opposite party in each case to recover rent. The opposite party in each case holds a karsa holding under a kayerni karsa tenure, which is held under a howla, the howla being held under a patni. The present petitioner, the plaintiff, is the proprietor of the patni, the howla right and the kayerni karsa right. When the suits were instituted, an objection in each case was taken by the tenant to their proceeding on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover by a suit the rents claimed, because he, as proprietor of the kayerni karsa tenure, did not serve on himself as proprietor of the howla light a notice as required by Section 15 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Both the lower Courts have given effect to this objection and dismissed the suits. Against the judgments and decrees in both suits, these applications have been made and these Ru...
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1912
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.65
1. This is an appeal by the claimant in a ease under the Land Acquisition Act. The property acquired is known as Lane's Hill and the substantial controversy between the parties at the present stage relates to two matters, namely, first, the valuation of what is described as hill top and high flat lands, and, secondly, the apportionment of the compensation between the claimant and the Government, as a considerable portion of the property under acquisition is included in a noabad mahal held by the claimant under the Government.2. In so far as the value of the hill top and high flat lands is concerned, the award made by the Judge in affirmance of the award of the Collector is at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per kani. The materials placed before the Court to determine the market-value are of two descriptions, namely, first, evidence of the rent payable and, secondly, evidence of land acquisition awards made in respect of similar property in the locality The first class of evidence relates to what...
Sekh Chand Pramanik Vs. Romoni Mohan Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.603
1. These are six appeals brought by defendants transferees of alleged entire holdings, which were held under the plaintiffs by the transferors who are no parties to the suit. The learned Munsif held that the landlord was not entitled to eject these transferees. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed his decision and held that the landlord was entitled to eject. He, therefore, gave a decree for khas possession to the plaintiff with costs in each case.2. Three points are taken by the defendants before us in appeal, first, that the suit was not properly framed, inasmuch as it was absolutely necessary to make the original tenants parties; secondly, that on the findings of the Munsif, which have not been reversed by the learned Subordinate Judge, it ought to have been held that the holdings are transferable without the consent of the landlord; and thirdly, that although there have been transfers, no fresh tenancies have been created and, therefore, there has been no abandonment or forfeitur...
Thaddeus Vs. Janaki Nath Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal423
Fletcher, J.1. This is an application to revoke a sanction that has been granted under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts appear to be as follows: On September 1st, 1911, a suit brought by Mr. Thaddeus against the applicant was beard before Harington J., who decreed the suit ex parte. At the conclusion Mr. Buckland, who appeared for Mr. Thaddeus, according to the Court minute, asked for sanction to prosecute Brojendra Nath Saha, under Sections 193,199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, for having made a false affidavit. The Court according to the minute said, 'Very well.' That suit, as I have already said, was heard on September 1st, 1911; that was on the eve of the long vacation, and the decree was not drawn up till January 6th, 1912. Apparently last year the Court sat for a very few days, owing to the visit of His Majesty the King-Emperor, between the long vacation and the New Year, and the visit of the King-Emperor running into the New Year, according to my reco...
Troylokya Nath Pal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.188
1. In these cases, in a Settlement Revenue Roll prepared under Sections 104A to 104-F of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, the plaintiffs-appellants have been recorded as ten are-holders. They brought the suits out of which these appeals arise to have it declared that their status is that of ryots with rights of occupancy, and to have fair and equitable rents settled on that basis in respect of their holding's. The suits are brought under the provisions of Section 104 H of the Act and the sole question that arises in these appeals is whether the plaints have been written on paper sufficiently stamped. The appellants contend that the provisions of the Court Fees Act applicable are Article 17 of Schedule It, Clause (i) and Clause (iii), while the Secretary of State, defendant-respondent, urges that at valorem fees should be paid under Section 7(iv)(c), on the sum at which the plaintiffs have valued their suits or the relief sought. We are of opinion that the respondent's contention must prev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »