Kolkata Court March 1913 Judgments
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Ram Chandra Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.948
1. This appeal must fail. Both the lower Courts have held the suit to be barred by adverse possession. But Mr. Sinha, on behalf of the plaintiff, has sought to escape from that by suggesting that the plaintiff and the defendants were respectively landlord and tenants, so that the bar of limitation could not apply. But the foundation of his argument fails. The plaint clearly proceeds upon the assumption that there was not that relationship of landlord and tenant. This is the view also advanced in the written statement, and the evidence that has been brought to our notice shows that even at the trial the case was that the defendants were in possession not as tenants, but wrongfully and without any right. The Munsif found definitely and clearly that the defendants were not the Maharaja's tenants. The finding of the District Judge is not clear on this point, but he was of opinion with the learned Munsif that the appellant was aware of the adverse title claimed by the defendants-As I unders...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Giris Chandra Nag Banikya ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.949
1. It was conceded at the outset by Mr. Sinha in this case that if this suit was to be treated as one based on trespass then it must fail, as it would clearly be barred. We have read through the plaint, written statements, and issues in this case, and it seems to me to be clear that the suit was based on trespass and on trespass only. The mere fact that there was an alternative claim for rent does not disturb that view, because that claim was based on Section 157 of the Bengal Tenancy Act: on the contrary, this, if anything, goes to confirm the view that the suit was one of trespass.2. In this view, we must confirm the decree with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Singha Vs. Tripura Charan Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal650
Mookerjee J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for house rent. To appreciate the question of law which calls for decision, it is necessary to state briefly the undisputed facts. The house originally belonged to Kanailal Ghosh, who transferred it on the 10th October, 1893, to Dayamoyee Dasee and her brother's son Hara Chand Jalal. The purchasers, while in possession of the house, leased it to the first, defendant on the 1st January, 1901. Shortly after, Dayamoyee Dasee died, on the 25th February, 1901. On the 20th July, 1908, Hara Chand Jalal transferred the house to the plaintiff, on the allegation that, upon the death of his father's sister, Dayamoyee Dasee, he had taken by inheritance her half share of the property and had thus become full owner thereof. On the 8th September, 1908, the plaintiff commenced the present suit for rent. Besides other defences not material at this stage, the first defendant resisted the claim on the plea that Dayamoyee Dasee was a prosti...
Tag this Judgment!India General Steam Navigation Company Vs. Bhagwan Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal716
Stephen, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows.2. The plaintiff in a Small Cause Court suit, who shows cause as the opposite party to a Rule before us, was the consignee of four tins of oil forwarded to him from Dacca by the defendants, the present petitioners, on terms contained in what is known as an owner's risk note. The defendants received the tins in good condition and carried them to Silchar, where they called on the plaintiff to take delivery. This he refused to do, because one tin was cut open and partly empty and another was quite empty, but brought a suit for the value of the oil. The Court below decreed the suit on the ground that the company's servants were responsible for what had happened. No evidence was given on either side to show, how the two tins that were not full had been tampered with.3. This Court has granted a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the decision of the Small Cause Court should not be set aside or modified on the ground that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sitanath Panda Vs. Eara NaraIn Mahapatra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.58
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the landlord-defendant in a suit commenced by the tenant-respondent under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair rent. The landlord defended the suit on the allegation that the plaintiff was not his tenant. It was established, however, that in 1895 the plaintiff got a lease for a term of six years, from the mother of the defendant while the latter was an infant. It has been argued that this lease was not binding upon the appellant; inasmuch as his mother, though his certificated guardian, had not obtained the sanction of the District Judge. This contention is of no assistance to the appellant, because even if it be assumed--as the matter has not been investigated--that the lease had not been sanctioned by the District Judge, it was merely voidable at the instance of the defendant. No question, however, can now arise as to the avoidance of the lease. The original term of the lease has expired, and the plaintiff has been allowed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Lal Roy Vs. Dhirendra Nath Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal710
Fletcher, J.1. This is a matter which relates to what is known as the rule of damdupat. The rule applies to Hindus dealing with one another, and is one of equity and good, sense. It is that the amount of interest a creditor can recover against his debtor shall not exceed the amount of principal. The present application arises in a mortgage suit, and arises under these circumstances. The question is, does this rule of damdupat apply to cases where default is made by the mortgagor in payment of the principal, interest and costs after the day appointed for payment by the Court. The decisions in this Court on that point are contradictory. The first decision that has been referred to is that of Mr. Justice Sale in Ram Kanye Audhicary v. Cally Churn Dey (1894) I.L.R. 21 Calc. 840. A decision to the contrary effect was given by Mr. Justice Woodroffe in an Insolvency case in the matter of Hari Lal Mullick (1906) I.L.R. 23 Calc. 1269. In my opinion, so far as the general principle applies, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Fazal Imam Vs. Sukor Mahton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal766,25Ind.Cas.442
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs-landlords in a suit for rent. The substantial question for. consideration is, whether the compromise into which the landlords and the tenants have entered is in contravention of Sections 147A and 147B of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In the Record of Rights the rent which is payable in kind is stated to be one-half of the produce. In the present suit, however, the landlords claimed more than a half share of the produce; the defendants did not resist the claim. In fact, the common case of both the parties is that for a long series of years the tenants have paid rent to the landlords at the rate alleged, and they jointly prayed that a decree might be drawn up in terms of the petition of compromise filed by them. It thereupon became the duty of the Court to determine, under Section 147A, Sub-section 2, of the Bengal Tenancy Act, whether the terms of the compromise, if they had been embodied in a contract, could be enforced under the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!Bisseswar Sonamut Vs. Jasoda Lal Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal704
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an appellate order made in execution proceedings. The decree-holder, who had obtained a decree on a mortgage, applied, successfully to the Court for sale of the property. Thereupon, the judgment-debtor presented tire application out of which the present appeal arises. He sought to have this sale-order set aside on the ground that the application was barred under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His application was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, and this order has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. It is from this last order of the lower Appellate Court that the present appeal is preferred. It is necessary to set out a few facts to explain the case. The preliminary decree on the mortgage was passed on the 22nd of September, 1896, and it was made absolute on the 27th of April, 1897. The application for sale which is impugned by the application now under consideration was made on the 18th of December, 1911, more than twelve y...
Tag this Judgment!Bangali Shah Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal702
Coxe and N. R. Chatterjea, JJ.1. This was a Rule to show cause why the order binding the petitioner down to be of good behaviour, on the ground that he had no ostensible means of subsistence, should not be set aside on the ground that the facts found did not justify it. It appears that the petitioner's means of subsistence is the conduct of what is known as the 'ring' game. Such a means of subsistence is certainly ostensible, and it will appear from the decision in the case of Han Sing v. King-Emperor (1907) 6 C. L. J. 708. that it is not an offence under the Gambling Act to conduct such a game. It is quite clear also that the game can be honestly conducted. The mere fact that the petitioner lives by this means does not justify the conclusion that he has no ostensible means of subsistence. The Rule is accordingly made absolute, and the order set aside....
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Nath Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Shashti Kinkar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.869
Holmwood, J.1. The suit oat of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs as shebaits of a certain Thakur to have it declared that the lands in suit appertain to and are comprised within the Mouzah Ghattauri owned and held by the plaintiffs in durpatni right and that the defendants were not entitled to collect a 9-annas share of the rent, of the tenants on the said lands and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover 16 annas rent from the pro forma tenant defendants. They also prayed for possession and that the kabuliat which the defendants have accepted from the tenants in respect of the said land was inoperative and they should recover Rs. 99 as rents wrongfully collected by the defendants by way of mesne profits.2. The Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiffs a decree for 15 bighas odd out of the 32 bighas claimed on a finding of fact based on the measurements and report of a Commissioner that 15 bighas 16 cottahs of the land was actually within the ambit of Ghattaur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »