Kolkata Court August 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.
Peari Shah Vs. Surja Mal Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.575
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order under Clause (a) of Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure of 190S on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction. The plaintiffs commenced this action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Deoghur for declaration of a right of easement in respect of their house and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with Such right. The plaintiffs claimed to discharge water from their premises to a drain on the land of the defendant and also to have uninterrupted use of light and air across his premises. The claim was valued at Rs. 1,100. The defendant took exception to the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that a fictitious value had been designedly attributed to the subject-matter of the litigation, so as to confer jurisdiction upon a Court which would otherwise be not competent to take cognizance of the matter. The Subordinate Judge thereupon appointed a commissioner to value the subj...
Sarat Chandra Ghose Vs. Pratap Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal232
Chaudhuri, J.1. This was a suit to obtain a declaration that a deed of trust executed by Padmabati Dasee, mother of the plaintiff, affecting certain of her properties was void and inoperative, and that he and her other heirs were entitled to a partition of these properties according to their shares. The plaintiff gave some evidence, but has elected not to go on with it, and rests his claim entirely on the construction of the trust deed. He contends that the trusts created by the sixth clause are void and inoperative. It is, therefore, unnecessary to deal with the evidence recorded.2. The reason for executing the trust deed is given in the following passage, taken from the Court translation: 'Now I do, for religions acts (dharmakarmarthe) with a desire for the spiritual benefit of the deceased forefathers, and to please Vishnu, make over, for religious purposes (dharmoddeshe)' etc. The expressions 'religious acts' and 'religions purposes' do not accurately render the equivalent Bengali ...
Jogendra Nath Mukherji Vs. Moti Lal Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.406
1. We think that this Rule must be discharged.2. The short point raised by it is whether a Magistrate, having drawn up a charge against an accused person with a view to his commitment to the Court of Session, can thereafter allow the accused to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and, as the result, cancel the charge. We are of opinion that it is open to him to take this course.3. Section 213, Sub-section (2), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1893, provides that, if a Magistrate, after having drawn up a charge, hears witnesses for the defence and is then satisfied that there are not, after all, sufficient grounds for committing the accused, he may cancel the charge and discharge the accused. No doubt, the sub-section refers to 'witnesses for the defence'; but in our view, those words are wide enough to cover evidence extracted by cross-examination from witnesses for the prosecution. The course taken by the Magistrate seems to us to be clearly within the spirit of the prov...
Rajani Kant Mukerji and ors. Vs. Ram Dulal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.881
1. These appeals were heard by our learned predecessors on this Bench. On consideration, they desired to hear argument on a point which was not discussed before them, namely, whether the suit was barred by Article 46 of the Limitation Schedule. They were not able, however, to hear this point argued, before one of them left the Court on leave. The appeal has accordingly been re-heard by us in full.2. The lands in suit in the present cases are situated in Char Khandkar. It appears that this mehal was let in farm from 1289 to 1298. It was again let in farm for 1299 and again for 1300. Prom 1301 to 1305, it was kept in the direct possession of Government, and it was again let in farm in 1306. The farmers in 1295 settled a holding known as No. 63 with the plaintiffs. But it is alleged by the plaintiffs that in the Settlement proceedings of 1301, a portion of the lands covered by No. 63 was excluded from that holding. They complained to the Settlement Officer who, however, seems to have whol...
Bhabangana Debya Vs. Harendra NaraIn Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.48
1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the orders, dated the 1st and the 22nd May 1912, should not be set aside on the ground that they were made without jurisdiction and that the first order was made without notice to the petitioner.2. The following are the facts of the case: One Chandra Kanta Lahiri and others were co-Owners of a patni, called Taraf Chupri. Under the Bengal Tenancy Act, a common manager was appointed by the District Judge as there existed a dispute among the co-owners as to the management of this patni estate, which was likely to cause injury to private rights. Sometime after the appointment of this common manager, Chandra Kanta Lahiri died leaving a Will under which the present petitioner, who is his widow, obtained one-and-a-half annas share in the taluk. Nalini Kanta Lahiri, a son of the deceased, was appointed executor under the Will and as such he obtained Probate thereof, after which he used to receive rents from the common manager ...
Hiranund Ojha and anr. Vs. Raghunath Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.904
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment of a ryot under Clauses 4 and 5 of Section 37 of the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act 1879. The events antecedent to the suit are tot in controversy and may be briefly stated. The plaintiffs claim to be lessees under one Suppal Misser, who held a tenure under Bissessur Bux Roy and others, proprietors of the estate, within which the disputed property is situated. The land of the tenure was unlawfully resumed by the proprietors, whereupon the tenure-holder brought a suit to recover possession upon establishment of his khairat title. During the pendency of this litigation, the defendant was settled as a ryot by the manager under the Encumbered Estates Act, who was in possession of the properties of the proprietors. Suppal Missir was ultimately successful, and subsequently granted a lease in favour of the plaintiffs. On the 19th June 1903, the plaintiffs commenced this...
Jogendra Nath Mookerjee Vs. Mati Lal Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR39Cal885
Carnduff and Imam, JJ.1. We think that this Rare must be discharged.2. The short point raised by it is whether a Magistrate, having drawn up a charge against an accused person with a view to his commitment to the Court of Session, can thereafter allow the accused to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and, as the result, cancel the charge. We are of opinion that it is open to him to take this course.3. Section 213, Sub-section (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, provides that, if a Magistrate, after having drawn up a charge, hears witnesses for the defence and is then satisfied that there are not, after all, sufficient grounds for committing the accused, he may cancel the charge and discharge the accused. No doubt, the sub-section refers to 'witnesses for the defence'; but, in our view, those words are wide enough to cover evidence extracted by cross-examination from witnesses for the prosecution. The course taken by the Magistrate seems to us to be clearly within ...
Mathura Prasad Vs. Tota Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal806
Mookerjee and Holmwood JJ.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The sole question in controversy is whether an annual sum of Rs. 40 claimed by the plaintiff falls within the description of an illegal imposition within the meaning of Section 74 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants hold under a lease dated the 18th September 1877. In this instrument, the area of the land is stated to be 77 bighas 14 cottahs and 13 dhurs whereon rent is assessed at the rate of Rs. 3-4 a year per bigha; the total rent is stated to be Rs. 252-6-7 to be paid in one instalment in the month of Baisak, and, in the event of default of payment, to carry interest at the rate of two per cent, per month. In the concluding portion of the lease, it is further stated that 'the tenant would deliver annually four cart-loads of husk of wheat and gram, and that if he failed to deliver the husk according to the terms of the contract, he would pay for the price thereo...
Mathura Prasad and ors. Vs. Tota Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.177
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The sole question in controversy is, whether an annual sum of Rs. 40 claimed by the plaintiff falls within the description of an illegal imposition within the meaning of Section 74 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants hold under a lease, dated the 18th September 1877. In this instrument, the area of the land is stated to be 77 bighas, 14 cottahs and 13 dhurs, whereon rent is assessed at the rate of Rs. 3-4 a year per bigha; the total rent is stated to be Rs. 252-6-7 to be paid in one instalment in the month of Baisakh, and in the event of default of payment, to carry interest at the rate of two per cent. per month. In the concluding portion of the lease, it is further stated that the tenant would deliver annually four cart-loads of husk of wheat and gram, and that if he failed to deliver the husk according to the terms of the contract, he would pay for the price thereof at the rate of Rs. 5 ...
Hanip Mandal Vs. Barada Kishore Acharya Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.419
1. This appear arises out of a suit for rent which has been decreed by the Court below. It is found that the village, in which the land was situated, was let out to an ijardar and that this ijardar settled the land in suit with the defendant in 1297 and collected rent from him at the rate of Rs. 15 odd. The ijara terminated at the end of 1300 and after that, the plaintiff's men continued to collect rent at that rate. In 1304, a registered kabulyat was obtained from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 30. The only question of importance that arises in this appeal is whether this kabulyat is rendered invalid by Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. On this point, the Subordinate Judge says that Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not apply 'as the defendant has taken settlement of an old tenants land which he did not possess before his purchase.' In coming to this conclusion, the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have overlooked entirely the fact that the defendant at the time, whe...