Kolkata Court April 1913 Judgments
Debi Prosad Chowdhury Vs. Golap Bhagat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal421
Jenkins, C.J.1. But see Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh (1907) I.L.R. 30 All. 1; L. R. 35 I. A. 1.2. In that case their Lordships held the consent of the kinsmen to be evidence of the bond fides of the transaction. That, moreover, was a case of sale. Their Lordships refused to extend the Bengal doctrine of Nobokishore's case (1884) I.L.R. 10 Calc. 1102. further, and to apply the rule of sale to mortgages would be to extend the operation of the Bengal doctrine.3. It was held by the Privy Council in Behari Lal v. Mad ho Lal Ahir Gayawal (1891) I.L.R. 19 Calc. 236; L. R. 19 I. A. 19 I. A. 30. that the widow must withdraw her whole interest. A mortgage is not a case of withdrawal of the entire interest.4. In Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh (1907) I.L.R. 30 All. 1; L. R. 35 I. A. 1. the whole estate was transferred, and the point decided was that consent of the reversioners after the transfer would not make it inoperative.Mookerjee, J.5. Do you say that this case negat...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Ram Charan Dass and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1913
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.942
1. The subject-matter of this litigation is a tank which, it is conceded, was excavated by the defendants' predecessor very many years ago. It is further conceded that the plaintiff has received no rent in respect of this tank, and that in fact no rent has ever been paid by the defendant who claims in this suit that if is his rent-free land. He has succeeded in both the lower Courts in establishing the plea of limitation. The facts which are conceded appear to me to support that plea. It was argued that that this case is distinguishable from those with which we have already dealt, because the encroachment by which possession is said to have been obtained of this land on which the tank is situated, constituted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and that therefore, the plea of limitation is not open to the defendant as being a tenant of the plaintiff. But, in my opinion, there is an error in this argument. What we have to see is whether this e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›