Kolkata Court June 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.
Fazlar Rahim Vs. Nabendra Kishore Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.341
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for the recovery of possession of certain lands claimed by the plaintiffs as appertaining to a mahal purchased by them at sale under the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act of 1859. The plaintiffs having made this purchase proceeded to issue notices for the annulment of encumbrances under Section 37 of the said Act, and they were unsuccessful in obtaining possession of the land and had to institute the present suit. They rested their case mainly on the thakbust map of 1865. The defendants sat up the title of the owners of certain other shares in the mahal and relied on their part on certain chittas prepared by the Government in 1843-44 when the purgana was measured.2. The Court of first instance gave preference to the chittas and dismissed the suit on the strength of the evidence afforded by them. The lower Appellate Court, on the other hand, has taken a contrary view, holding that the evidence of the thakbust map is superior to that of the chittas...
Kshetra Moni Dasi Vs. Amodini Dasi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.611
1. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 6 form the members of a Brahmin tarwad. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent, the karnavan of the tarwad, has made several alienations which are not binding on the family and, therefore, seeks to remove the 1st respondent from the karnavanship, to set aside the alienations and for other consequential reliefs, He also states that the 1st respondent, as karnavan of his family and the 7th respondent in karnavan of the family of defendants Nos. 7 to 10, are the trustees or uralans of Kelalur temple and that the first respondent in collusion with the 7th respondent has made many alienations and seeks to set aside those alienations and to recover the properties which are in the possession of the alienees. He farther alleges that the 1st respondent, as the karnavan of his tarwad and the 11th respondent as the karnavan of defendants Nos. 11 to 17, are the uralans of Esanmangalam temple and that they in collusion have created many alienation...
Maharajah Bahadur Sir Prodyot Kumar Tagore Vs. Isri Ram Marwari and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.792
1. This appeal is directed against a decree in a suit to enforce a mortgage-security alleged to have been executed, by the first defendant, Udho Prashad, in favour of the plaintiff on the 21st January 1904. The defendants are the mortgagor, the purchaser of the right, title and interest of the owner of the property and the owner herself, who appears to have executed a fictitious conveyance in favour of the mortgagor, the first defendant, on the 25th December 1901. The Courts below have found that the property did not belong to the mortgagor, that, as a matter of fact, it belonged to the third defendant and that the conveyance executed by her was fictitious and not intended to transfer any title. It appears that in execution of a decree held by the mortgagee Janki Prasad, the disputed property was sold on the 2nd December 1903 and was purchased by one Debiram. On the 14th December 1903, the first defendant who was the ostensible owner applied, under Section 311 of the Civil Procedure Co...
Prasanna Kumar Adhikary Vs. RachimuddIn Howladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.327
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent, and, for present purposes, the facts may be thus briefly stated.2. In February 1904, the defendant executed a kabulyat in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to occupy 96 bighas of land at a rental of Rs. 220 per annum, and further stipulating that, should he be found at any time to be occupying more land than that specified, he would be liable to pay rent for the excess land at the same rate. The defendant now holds 117 bighas of land, and the suit was brought to recover from him rent for the years 1906 and 1907 at the rate of Rs. 268 par annum.3. After the execution of the kabulyat, Settlement proceedings were undertaken, and fair and equitable rents were settled under Sections 104 to 104F of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, as it now stands after amendment. A Record of Rights was finally published on the 5th April 1906, and, according to it, the defendant then held 117 bights of land, and the rent fixed for that are...
Akbar Ali Mian and ors. Vs. Musammat Hira Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.332
Coxe, J.1. These appeals arise out of proceeding's under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the only points that arise for decision are, firstly, whether an appeal lies and secondly, whether under the circumstances of this case, the landlords-respondents are entitled to additional rent under Section 52 of the Act.2. The facts found appear to be as follows: The land was measured by the landlords in 13G1 but the measurement was very badly done with the somewhat unusual result that the area put down as in the occupation of each tenant was far below the real area of his holding. The rates of rent were the same then as now bat, as the area was understated, the rent also was understated. Now that the land has been properly measured, the landlords claim that they are entitled to rent at the same rates on what has been found to be the real area. This view has been accepted by the Special Judge, and the tenants appeal.3. As to the preliminary objection that no appeal lies, I think that i...
Yusuf Gaze Vs. Asmatullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.430
1. In support of this appeal, the following points have been raised: first, that, in Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the words 'date of the sale' mean not the actual date of the sale but the 'date of the confirmation of the sale'. To support this contention, we have been referred to the provisions of Section 169 of the same Act and we are also informed that the provisions of the Sale Law go to support this view. It is only necessary to point out that Section 169 was amended by the introduction of the words 'date of the confirmation of the sale' for date of the sale' and that, in. the section referred to, Section 167, the date expressly mentioned is the date of the sale' and not the date of the confirmation of the sale'. In the Act XI of 1859, Section 33, the period within which a suit must be brought is expressly stated to be within one year from the date of the sale becoming final and conclusive'. No other authority has been laid before us to support the contention that the wor...
Parbati Debi Vs. Mathura Nath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal29
Richard Harington, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for enhancement Of rent has been dismissed by both the Courts of first instance and the lower Appellate Court. The facts are that the plaintiff and the defendants 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 this in respect of this undivided six annas of the howla that the plaintiff seeks to obtain an enhancement of 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 am occupancy raiyat within the terms of Section 30 of the Bengal, Tenancy Act and oh 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 ...
Nafar Chandra Pal Chowdhury Vs. Kamini Kumar Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.205
1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia in a case brought by the present appellants, as plaintiffs, to recover possession of two darpatni holdings, with mesne profits.2. It appears that the present appellants are purchasers of the paini right at a sale for arrears of rent, and that, under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, they served notices on Rajabala Debi, the daughter and heir of Radha Ballabh Gossain, annulling the darpatni tenures and requiring her to give up possession. The notices were served on the 4th June 1901, but she refused to give up possession; and the present suit was instituted on the 13th April 1904. On the 31st July 1905, the suit was dismissed. The suit was instituted against Rajabala Debi and, after it had been dismissed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, she died. There was an appeal to the High Court by the plaintiffs and the three sons of Rajabala were substituted for her as respondents. The appeal was decre...
Jamiruddi Biswas and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.523
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and the sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Khulna who, agreeing with the unanimous verdict of the Jury, convicted one Jamiruddi of an offence under Section 326, and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment, and they further unanimously found three persons, Samiruddi, Kalam and Afizuddi, guilty under Section 326, read with Section 114, and Afizuddi further under Section 323. Afizuddi was given four years under Section 326, read with Section 114, and four months under Section 323, the sentences to run concurrently. The other two, Samiruddi and Kalam, were given three years each under Section 326 read with Section 114.2. Now, we have considered the charge to the Jury and we find that the only point of misdirection is with regard to the law of abetment by conspiracy and that only applies to appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4.3. The conviction of Jamiruddi is a right conviction and it is not based on any misdirection. We, therefore, have no po...
Baikantha Nath Chakravarti Vs. Kashi Nath Pandit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.553
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof. The disputed property admittedly belonged originally to one Dhir Naran Pandey. On the 8th May 1903, Dhir Naran made a gift of this property to his daughter, Annoda Dasi. On the 4th June 1905, Dhir Naran made a testamantary disposition in favour of his son-in-law, Radha Madhab Bera. Annoda Das died on the 12th January 1906. Dhir Naran himself died in January 1908. Shortly after, on the 13th May 1908, Radha Madhab Bera sold the disputed property to the defendant. The case for the plaintiff is that the property formed part of the estate of Dhir Naran at the time of his death, either because the gift was fictitious and inoperative or because, assuming the gift to be genuine, the property reverted to Dhir Naran as heir to the donee, his daughter, and that in either view, the plaintiff is entitled, as the nephew of Dhir Naran, to take the property ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »