Kolkata Court January 1913 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.
Munshi Misser and anr. Vs. Bhimrajmam and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.824
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The fact that the water flows over the surface of the servient tenement without a definite channel for its carriage cannot prevent the acquisition of an easement. We, therefore, think that the case of Bidhoo Bhusan Palit v. Beny Madhub Mazumaar 8 C.W.N. 244 was not correctly decided. We must accordingly remand the case to the lower Appellate Court in order that it may be determined, first, whether a right has been acquired to discharge water into the servient tenement through a drain which ends in a wall standing on the boundary of the defendants' land, and, secondly, whether having regard to the provisions of Section 26 of the Limitation Act, the present suit lies in respect thereof, and to dispose of the case accordingly.2. The costs in the High Court including the costs of this reference will abide the result....
Kartik Chandra Ojha Vs. Gora Chand Mahto
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal518
Chitty and Teunon, JJ.1. In this case the landlord petitioners made an application under Section 27 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (Bengal Act VI of 1908) for the enhancement of the rent paid by the tenants opposite-parties in respect of their holding.2. The application was heard by a Deputy Collector empowered to discharge the functions of a Deputy Commissioner under Section 27 and the following sections of the Act. After a prolonged enquiry the Deputy Collector on the 12th February, 1912, made an order enhancing the rent of the tenants from Rs. 2-8 to Rs. 32-10-5 per annum. Against this order the tenants preferred an appeal under the provisions of Section 215 (1) (iv) to the Deputy Commissioner who, after commenting on the proceedings of the Deputy Collector in terms which should not find a place in the judgment, of any Court, dismissed the landlords application on the ground that in his opinion the questions at issue should be decided only 'after a fall and fair trial' or 'by the S...
Phanindar Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal465,18Ind.Cas.891
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling on the Collector of Patna and also on the opposite party to show cause why the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer of Barh, on the 29th October, 1912, directing proceedings to be drawn up against the petitioner, under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside, on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction.2. It appears that, on a complaint by One Rucktoo Singh, a proceeding was instituted against the petitioner under Clause (3) of Section 58 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Collector of Patna transferred the case to the Subdivisional Officer of Barh. This officer passed an order on the 14th October, 1912. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Subdivisional Officer two other applications were made by two other tenants, similar to the one made by Rucktoo Singh; and Rucktoo Singh also pat in another before this officer: whereupon an order was passed to this effect: 'Notice has already been...
Abadhaut Banerjee Vs. Kaniz Fatima Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.239
1. It is a little difficult to see what the precise point which is sought to be argued before us in this second appeal is. The findings of both Courts are perfectly clear that the putni kabuliat passed the chaukidari chakran lands to the plaintiffs as putnidars without any reservation. There was a clause in the contract that after resumption, the putnidar should be bound to pay separately at the rate of resumption the amount that may be demanded after resumption by Government of the chakran lands from the Collectorate of the District, that is, that the duty of paying assessment levied by the Collector under Section 49 of the Chaukidari Act falls upon the putnidar; and the putnidar will pay this or omit to pay at his own risk. If he do not do so and the zemindar thereby incur any loss, the remedies of the zemindar are well known and he can have no difficulty in enforcing the duty upon the putnidar, or in the last resort have the putni sold up. There does not seem to us, therefore, to be...
Nanda Lal Pathak and anr. Vs. Mohunt Chanurpat Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.143
Lawrence Jenkins C.J.1. This is a suit for recovery of possession of land on the ground that the defendants' possession of it was wrongful and illegal. The plaintiffs alleged that the land was their zerait. The defendants, in answer to that said that it was their Brahmottar land and that they had been in possession for a great number of years: and on that the parties went to trial.2. The lower Appellate Court has negatived the plaintiffs contention that the land is their zerait. It has also negatived the defendants plea that the land was their Brahmottar land; and the result has been that it has passed a decree in the plaintiffs favour holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession. The defendants 1st party have appealed from that decree.3. The first point taken is that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the land was not Brahmottar was not justified by the relevant evidence on the record. It appears that the land has been recorded as the defendants' Brahmotta...
Ramzan Mistri and ors. Vs. Haji Zahur Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.241
Holmwood, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the mosque in dispute was built by the plaintiff and other members of the Ahl-i-Hadis sect and that the plaintiff is the mutwalli and manager of the said mosque. Then come two prayers in connection with the Imam with which we are not called upon to deal for reasons which we shall presently state: and it was then prayed that a declaration be made that the defendants are in no way entitled to interfere with any of the above mentioned things, and the plaintiff after the ejection of the defendants may be awarded possession over the said mosque so that he may perform all the acts mentioned above without interference on the part of the defendants and may say prayers therein. There was then the prayer for temporary injunction and costs and any other relief to which the plaintiff might be entitled.2. Now a person who comes into Court and claims declarations of this nature which gi...
Maharaji Mamrik, and on His Death His Sons and Heirs Baski Mamrik and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal732,18Ind.Cas.115
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of the moveable and immoveable property of a deceased lady Deuli Manjhiani, widow of a certain Dular Goala, who died in Jail in the year 1867. After his death, the zemindars settled the property with his widows and made them ijaradars and mustagirs under them. The plaintiffs are the legal reversionary heirs of Dular Goala, and apart from the question of confiscation which has been raised in this appeal and from certain allegations of res judicata which we shall deal with presently, there is no possible reason why they should not succeed as reversioners of Dular Goala. But it is argued in this appeal that Rule 27, framed under Section 10 of the Sonthal Perganas Settlement Regulation III of 1872, applies to all persons resident and settled in the Sonthal Perganas and that under that rule the defendants are the preferential heirs to the plaintiffs.2. Dealing first with the question of confiscation, we find t...
Chandi Charan Laha and ors. Vs. Manoranjan Chattopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.275
1. These six appeals are against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Khulna, dated the 15th November 1910, granting applications to review orders previously passed by him on the 27th September last. Six plaints were filed by the present respondents on the 21st April 1909 before the Settlement Officer of Satkhira, District Khulna, praying for the following reliefs:1. that decrees be passed declaring that the plaintiffs have a rent-free right under a taidad in the lands specified in each plaint and aright acquired by adverse possession and that they are not assessable with rent;2. that decrees be passed for correction of the entries illegally and erroneously made in the khewat in respect of the aforesaid lands;3. that the costs of the cases may be awarded to the plaintiffs, and4. that the plaintiffs may get such other reliefs as they may be entitled to.The principal suit was valued at Rs. 6,810 and the others at smaller sums.2. These six suits were all transferred by the Settlement Off...
Makbul Ali Vs. Ali Ahmad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal514
Holmwood and Chapman, JJ.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption brought by the mortgagor plaintiff against the mortgagee defendant. The plaintiff mortgaged his property by way of usufructuary mortgage to the defendant, and a month afterwards obtained a lease from him for one year at the rental of 8 rupees a year. There was no stipulation in the usufructuary mortgage bond for any interest; and although the lease recites that there had been a mortgage there is no charge made on the property by the lease for the rent annually due upon it. The Courts below have, therefore, found that the redemption may be had on payment of the principal only, and have allowed no interest.2. The defendant appeals on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to redeem without, payment of principal and interest. He argues this point in three ways: first, he maintains that the decree should be one for account 5 secondly, that on a construction of both the documents the transaction was a ...
Ram Angutha Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal511
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. This was a Kale issued to the District Magistrate of the 24-Porgannahs to show cause why the sentences passed, under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, on the first three petitioners, should not be set aside, on the ground that separate sentences could not be passed against them under both the Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The three petitioners referred to above Lave been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and have each been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. They have also been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and each sentenced to a further term of three months' rigorous imprisonment. Objection is taken by them that the separate sentences under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code are illegal; and reference is made to the Full Bench ruling in the case of Nilmony Poddar v. The Queen Empress (1889) I.L.R. 16 Calc. 442 where it was held that separa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »