Kolkata Court December 1913 Judgments
Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Laksmi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.896
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to land and for assessment and recovery of rent in respect thereof. The case for the plaintiff is that the defendants are his tenants in respect of some lands within his estate, that they have encroached upon the disputed lands which were contiguous to the lands of their tenancy and that they are consequently liable to pay a fair rent for the encroached portion. The defendants plead that their ancestors excavated the disputed tank and that the rent was redeemed. They further contend that they have never paid rent and that the title of the plaintiff to realise rent has been barred by the Statute of Limitation. The Courts below have dismissed the suit.2. It is not disputed that more than 12 years before the commencement of the suit, in the course of Settlement proceedings, the defendants asserted to the knowledge of the plaintiff a title to hold the land without payment of rent to him. Their case at the time was tha...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadru Vs. Gagan Chandra Chakrabarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.902
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to land and for assessment of fair rent. The case for the plaintiff is that the defendant has without any title taken possession of the disputed land which is situated within his estate, that, although rent has been demanded repeatedly the defendant has not paid rent and has refused to take a settlement. The case for the defendant is that she has a rent-free title to the disputed tank and that in any event she and her predecessors have for generations held the property in adverse title, so that the claim of the plaintiff for assessment of rent is barred by limitation. The Courts below have concurrently dismissed the claim for assessment of rent.2. The plaintiff has now appealed to this Court and has contended on the authority of the decision in Nityanund Ghose v. Kissen Kishore W.R. 1864 Act X Ruling 82, that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and that consequently the mere assertio...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Chandi Charan Dey and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal870(2),24Ind.Cas.354
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to land and for assessment and recovery of rent. His case is that the defendants are tenants of some lands within his estate and have unlawfully taken possession of the disputed land. The defendants allege a rent-free grant of the land on which their great-grandfather excavated a tank still known by his name, and contend that the claim is barred by limitation as they have, to the knowledge of the plaintiff, asserted a rent-free title for more than 12 years, and have never paid rent. The Courts below have dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. This decision has been assailed before us in this appeal. We are of opinion that the suit must fail on the merits, apart from the question of limitation.2. The Subordinate Judge has omitted to try the fundamental question in the case, namely, whether the defendants have a rent-free title to the disputed property. We have accordingly dealt with the case under Section 103,...
Tag this Judgment!Jafar Ahmed and ors. Vs. Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal820,24Ind.Cas.319
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for assessment of rent. The case for the plaintiff is that the defendants are his tenants in respect of same lands, that they have, without his consent and without any arrangement for payment of rent, unlawfully taken possession of the disputed land, and that although they have been repeatedly asked in recent years to arrange for the payment of rent they have taken no heed. The defendants set up a rent-free grant, on the allegation that the tank in dispute was excavated by their predecessors more than a century ago and that they have been in possession since then without payment of rent. They plead in the alternative that if their rent-free grant is not established, the right of the plaintiff to claim assessment of rent has been extinguished by adverse possession for more than twelve years on their part. The Court of first instance found upon the evidence that the defendants had been in possession without payment of rent for a long serie...
Tag this Judgment!Manikya Bahadur Vs. Nazir Mahommad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.917
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit which has been described as one for rent. The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of a large estate, that the defendant is a tenant of some land within his estate, that he has taken advantage of his position as such tenant to take possession of the land in suit without any right and without settlement of rent and that the plaintiff was first apprised of this circumstance in 1898 when, in the course of Settlement proceedings, the defendant asserted that the was entitled to occupy this land without payment of rent to the proprietor. The plaintiff, therefore, prays for a decree for rent for three years at a rate described by him as fair and reasonable rate. The defendant resists the claim on the ground that he and his predecessors have held the land adversely to the knowledge of the plaintiff for 50 or 60 years and that the land is rent free The Court of first instance found that the land was situated within the ambit of the mal land of t...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Ali Vs. Maharajah Birendra Kishore Monikya Bahadoor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal866(2),24Ind.Cas.424
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for assessment of rent of a tank in his occupation. The case for the plaintiff is that the defendant is a tenant of some land within his zemindari and has taken possession of this land for which he is liable to pay rent. The defendant pleads that the tank was excavated by his grandfather that the property descended to his father, and has been in his possession for many years, and neither his grandfather nor his father nor he himself ever paid any rent for the tank, which is held under a rent-free grant. He further alleges that he had heard from his father that a lump sum was paid to the zamindar at the time when this rent-free grant was obtained. The defendant also asserts, in the alternative, a title by adverse possession for much longer than the statutory period. The Court of first instance found that from the nature of the land, the exclusive possession of the defendant and his predecessors, the non-payment of rent and the assertion of...
Tag this Judgment!Borthwick Vs. Borthwick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal609,(1914)ILR41Cal714
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. The petitioner, Mrs. Anne Elizabeth Borthwick, was arrested on the 18th October, 1913, in execution of a warrant issued by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Dinapore, the charge against her being that she had kidnapped her child from the lawful guardianship of the father, Mr. Herbert Charles Borthwick. It appears that the parties were married in 1905. Bight years later Mr. Borthwick filed a petition for divorce in the Court of the District Judge, Patna, on the ground of adultery and obtained a decree nisi on the 18th August, 1913. In that decree it was directed that Mrs. Borthwick do deliver up to Mr. Borthwick the son born of the marriage. Subsequently to the decree Mr. Borthwick, without the assistance of the Court, obtained custody of the boy, On the 10th October, 1913, the present petitioner Mrs. Borthwick, removed the child from Mr. Borthwick's house. Mr. Borthwick informed the police, and after enquiry the present case was instituted upon a police report cha...
Tag this Judgment!Wazed Ali Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal792,(1914)ILR41Cal719
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. The petitioners in this case have been ordered to execute bonds with sureties under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to keep the peace. At the trial of the case they applied to the Magistrate, before the examination of witnesses had commenced, for an adjournment under Clause (8) of Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code to enable them to move this Court for a transfer. The application was refused for the reason that proceedings under Section 107 were not governed by Clause (8) of Section 526, and the Magistrate proceeded to try the case. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses but the petitioners declined to cross-examine them, the claim being that the petitioners were entitled to an adjournment under the law. When called upon to enter on their defence, for the same reason they declined to examine their witnesses. The Magistrate then made an order binding them to keep the peace. Against that order they moved this Court and obtained this Rule on th...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Nath Biswas Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal694
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. The appellant, Biswas, has been convicted by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, of offences under Sections 46 and 48 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 210 under fee latter section; no separate sentence has been passed under the former section. The circumstances antecedent to the prosecution, as established by the evidence, may be briefly narrated.2. On the 12th October 1912, the Deputy Inspector of Excise at Calcutta, upon information received, searched the premises of the accused and found 32 boxes each containing 6 bottles and an isolated bottle of eau-de-Cologne and also 23 long shaped eau-de-Cologne phials all containing a similar liquid. On examination the contents were found to be perfumed denatured spirit The Deputy Inspector also found two boxes of labels similar to those affixed to the phials. The accused was thereupon prosecuted and charged with possessing, without license, 193 bottles and 23 long sha...
Tag this Judgment!Freeman Vs. P. and O.S.N. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal703
Chitty, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff against the P. & O.S.N. Co. to recover a sum of Rs. 2,242 as damages for the loss to him of articles of wearing apparel contained in a case delivered to one Nigel W. Freeman. The claim for Rs. 142 part of the above sum on account of the plaintiff's expenses between Nagpur and Calcutta and his evidence here is clearly unsustainable. The plaintiff values the entire contents of the case at Rs. 3,000, and those articles of clothing which were returned to him by Nigel W. Freeman at Rs. 900. The balance claimed is thus Rs. 2,100. The facts of the case are not in dispute. In January, 1911, the plaintiff, Noel William Freeman, who is a barrister-at-law, intended to come out to Nagpur in the Central Provinces. He was then coming to India for the first time and proposed to travel by America and Japan, arriving at Calcutta from the East about the end of April. He purchased an outfit, packed and locked the box now in question, and left England i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »