Kolkata Court May 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.
Panchoram Tekadar Vs. Kinu Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.252
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the lower Appellate Court confirming an order made by the Court of first instance in certain execution proceedings relating to mesne profits. It appears that the respondent in the present appeal obtained a decree against the present appellant for recovery of possession of a certain piece of land with mesne profits.2. It is altered that the plaintiff-respondent had been dispossessed on the 23rd Chait 1311 and mesne profits were claimed for the years 1312 to 1315. The suit was instituted on the 6th March 1907 in the Munsifs Court and a decree was obtained by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the land in suit together with mesne profits from the date of dispossession up to the date of the restoration of possession and it was directed that the amount of mesne profits would be determined in the execution proceedings. The decree was appealed against but it was confirmed, The execution proceedings for the purpose of determining the amo...
Sarat Chandra Biswas Vs. Ashraf Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.669
1. In this case, it appears that two rent suits were tried by a Munsif who. was invested with powers under Section 153 (6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In one suit, the amount claimed was Rs. 40-2, in the other it was Rs, 19-7. The Munsif decreed both the suits in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants then lodged appeals in both cases before the Subordinate Judge, who decreed the appeals in one judgment. A Rule was granted to show cause why the order of the Subordinate Judge should not be set aside. On the merits, the ground put forward by the petitioner is that under the circumstances, the decrees of the Munsif were final and that no appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge. This appears to us to be so. The point was not taken before the lower Appellate Court, but it is a question of jurisdiction. On the merits, therefore, this Rule is made absolute and the petitioner is entitled to his costs, the hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur.2. A preliminary objection, however, was raised ...
indro Deb Das and ors. Vs. Azizur Rahaman Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.9
Stephen, J.1. This case arises out of a mortgage-bond executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The bond recites that the defendants on the day of execution of the bond borrowed Rs. 2,000 from the plaintiffs. It then goes on to say: 'We shall pay interest on this sum at the rate of Re. 1-9 per month.' Further on there is a provision which is as follows: 'We shall pay the interest every six months from this date. If we fail to do so, the interest and compound interest shall, at the end of every six months, be added to the principal and we shall go on paying interest thereon at the aforesaid rate until the time of re-payment.'2. Before the lower Court it was argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that the first of these passages meant that interest was to be payable at the rate of Re. 1-9 per cent. per month and that the words 'per cent.' had been left out by mistake. Under the circumstances, the lower Court allowed evidence to be adduced to show that such a mistake had in fact...
Mahipal Singh and ors. Vs. Lalji Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.705
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in an action in ejectment. They claim under an instrument executed in their favour by the landlords respondents on the 21st November 1904. The principal defendants also claim title to the disputed property under the same landlords. The Court of first instance tried only the 4th issue in the case, namely, whether settlement of the disputed property by the Raj Baneli with the plaintiff should prevail over the alleged right, title and interest of the defendants first and second party and whether the plaintiffs have acquired title to the disputed property by the said settlement and by right of previous possession?' The Subordinate Judge answered the question raised against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the District Judge has affirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge; he has held that the instrument upon which the plaintiffs rely does not amount to a lease and they have consequently acquired no title to the land in di...
Fateh Chand and anr. Vs. Narsingh Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.988
1. These two appeals have been preferred--one by the second and third defendents, another by the fourth defendant--against the decree in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of land. The events antecedent to the suit, as found by the Subordinate Judge, may be briefly narrated. On the 23rd December 1902, the first defendant brought an action in ejectment against the second and third defendants in respect of the property now in dispute, On the 12th December 1904, a decree was made in that suit, whereby the title of the first defendant to the disputed property was established and he became entitled to recover possession by ejectment of the second and third defendants. During the pendency of that suit, the present plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the first defendant on the 21st September 1904, to the effect that he would finance the litigation and that if in the end a decree was made in favour of the first defendant, the benefit thereof would accrue to the pla...
Satish Chandra Sinha and ors. Vs. Munjanali Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.869
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for rent. The dispute is limited to a six-annas share of the property which the plaintiff claims to have purchased on the 15th May 1905 at a sale held under Regulation VIII of 1819. The defence is substantially two-fold, namely, first, that the claim is barred by res judicata, as a suit by a previous patnidar in 1895 failed on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the then plaintiff and the defendants was not established; and secondly, that the claim is barred by limitation.2. In so far as the first ground is concerned, it is entirely untenable. The plaintiff is a purchaser at a sale under Regulation VIII of 1819. Consequently, although his position may not be precisely that of a purchaser at a sale for arrears of revenue Moizuddi Biswas v. Ishan Chandra 13 C.L.J. 293 7 Ind. Cas. 849 : 16 C.W.N 706 yet he is not privy in estate to the defaulting proprietor and he 'does not derive his title from him, as...
Ali Ahmad Khan and ors. Vs. H.F. Brown and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.260
1. The petitioners as plain-tiffs sued four defendants for redemption and the recovery of Its. 4,000 odd, being the arrears of rents and profits due to them under a zur-i-peshgi lease. The second and third defendants did not contest the suit. The first and fourth defendants were alleged to be assignees from the second and third defendants, or rather the first defendant was said to be an assignee from the second and third defendants and to have transferred his interest to the fourth defendant. The first and fourth defendants pleaded that they had nothing to do with the mortgage, but admitted that they had, by a subsequent private arrangement, been put in possession of two of the mortgaged villages.2. After a keen contest, the Court below found that the statement of the first and fourth defendants was true; and in decreeing the suit against the 2nd and 3rd defendants ex parte, it directed that the rents and profits should be recovered from them alone, and that the 1st and 4th defendants ...
Shamsher Ali Vs. Jagarnath ThiraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.203
1. We are invited in this appeal to set aside an order granting an application for review of judgment. The appellant applied on the 6th December 1910 for reversal of an execution sale held on the 9th November 1910. The sale was set aside on the 6th December, upon payment of the sums mentioned in Rule 89 of Order XXI of the Code of 1908. The auction purchaser was dissatisfied with this order and preferred an appeal to the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed on the 6th April 1911. On the 16th May following an application was made for review of this order; it was however, presented before the Subordinate Judge as the District Judge was absent from the station. The Subordinate Judge received the application, registered it and directed notices to issue to the opposite party. Later on, the District Judge returned and passed various orders relating to the postponement of the case and analogous matters. Before the application could be heard on the meris, the learned District Judge unfortu...
Bamapada Roy and ors. Vs. the Midnapur Zemindary Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.376
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for enhancement of rent of a tenure. The litigation has now lasted for over seven years and the plaintiffs-respondents have met with varying fortune at successive stages. In the Court of first instance, a decree for enhancement was made in their favour to the extent of Rs. 199-12. Upon appeal, the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the property in question was not a tenure but an occupancy-holding. Upon appeal to this Court, the case was remanded. The District Judge has after remand made a desree in favour of the plaintiffs for enhancement to the extent of Rs. 906. On the present appeal by the defendants, it has been contended, first, that the disputed property is an occupancy-holding and the rent cannot be enhanced under Section 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; secondly, that if the disputed property is a tenure, the rent is not liable to be enhanced, because its history indicates that the rent was fixed in perpe...
Lal Behary Mitra Vs. Nagendra Nath Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.690
1. This appeal is directed against an order made by the Court of Appeal below in affirmance of an order of the original Court, whereby an application to set aside an execution sale on the ground of fraud and material irregularity was dismissed. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of the appeal on the ground, that it is barred under Section 104(2) of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, read with Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (j). There is, in our opinion, no substance in this contention. The order of the Court of first instance was made on the 21st September 1907. That order, in accordance with the law as interpreted by this Court at the time, was an order under Section 244 of it Code of 1882 and was consequently in the nature of a decree. Nemai Chand v. Dino Nath Kanjis C.W,N. 691 : Moti Lal Chakerbutty v. Russick Chandra Bairagi 26 C. 326(note) : 3 C.W.N. 395 : Bhubon Mohun Pal v. Nunda Lal Dey 26 C. 324 : 3 C.W.N. 399 : Hira Lal Ghose v. Chundra Kanto Ghose 26 C. 539...