Kolkata Court June 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.
Ananda Chandra Roy Vs. Abdullah HosseIn Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal148
Coxe and Ray, JJ.1. This was a suit for rent brought by the plaintiff against Mr. Weatherall, the estate of Mr. Garth represented by the Administrator-General, and Babu Ananda Chandra Roy. The suit has been dismissed as against the second defendant on the ground that no notice was served under Section 80 of the Code. It has been decreed against the other two, and the third defendant appeals.2. The first and principal point taken on his behalf is that he cannot be made liable at all for the rent. The rent is claimed for a patni or quasi-patni tenure which was granted by the predecessors of the plaintiffs in 1893 to Garth and Weatherall. The property covered by the patni was part of the family property of one Abdul Ali, over which he and his relations had been litigating for years and which had apparently been the subject of numerous execution sales and successful and unsuccessful claims. In 1898 an agreement was arrived at between Garth and Weatherall on the one side and the appellant o...
Benode Lal Ghose Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal879(1),(1914)ILR41Cal164
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. The petitioner was sentenced, under Section 575 read with Section 408 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, to a fine for repeated failure to comply with a notice served upon him under Section 408 requiring him to make improvements upon certain property which he owns in the city of Calcutta. It appears that the petitioner had, before the service of the notice, leased the property upon a long lease. His reply to the case against him was that he had not been able to execute the improvements owing to the property being in possession of the lessee and of certain tenants under the lessee. The petitioner had instituted a proceeding against the lessee under Section 622 of the Act and had obtained an order from the Chief Judge of the Calcutta Small Cause Court requiring the lessee to give him reasonable facilities to carry out the improvements required of him. Thereafter the petitioner's contractor had made an attempt to carry out the improvements but had been obstructed by th...
In Re: the Matter of an Attorney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal113
Jenkins, C.J.1. On the 13th of May 191.3 a Rule was issued by Chaudhuri J. at the instance of Srimatee Kusum Kumari Dasee, the plaintiff in suit No. 405 of 1909, calling on an attorney of this Court to show cause why ho should not be struck off the Roll of Attorneys. The Rule was returnable on the 23rd May and on that day came before this Bench. A number of objections were taken as to the procedure that had been adopted, and special stress was laid on the fact that the service of the Rule on the attorney had not been personal, that none of the materials on which the Rule was based and no grounds had been served, and that the length of the service was insufficient. It was proposed to support these objections by reference to the English rules, but we had to be guided by the rules of this Court.2. These rules make no special provision for the disciplinary procedure of this Court, and the course adopted in this case, except as to the mode of service, was according to the Court's ordinary p...
Shiba Prosad Samanta Vs. Rakhalmani Dasee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal130
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit whereby the plaintiffs seek to vindicate a right which they claim under a putni lease in their favour executed in 1870. By that document it was provided on the part of the zemindar as follows: 'We (that is the zemindars) shall pay the Government revenue, poolbundi and dak cesses, you having nothing to do with the same.' The Embankment Acts in force at that time were XXXII of 1855 (Government of India) and Act VII of 1866 (Government of Bengal), and for the purposes of this argument it has been assumed that the obligation in respect of embankment charges was on the zemindars at that time. Whether that was so under Act VII of 1866 in all cases we need not now determine, but we will assume, for the purpose of this case, the correctness of the view that the stipulation which I have read gave practical effect to the state of the law as it then stood. These two Acts have been repealed, and that now in force is Act II of 1882 of the Bengal Legislature. There are...
Rudra NaraIn Maiti Vs. Natobar Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal52
Jenkins, C.J.1. The only point that arises on this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by Article 3 in the third Schedule to the Bengal Tenancy Act. This is an Article which, after a lapse of a certain time, deprives the plaintiff of his right to come to Court for the purpose of vindicating a claim which is his, and therefore it must be clearly made out that any particular case falls within its terms. We recently had occasion to enter a protest against extending the terms of this Article by use of figures of speech and metaphors L.P.A. No. 44 of 1911, decided on the 30th May, 1913. What we have to see in each case is whether in fact there has been such dispossession as the Article requires. That dispossession, it is conceded, must be by the landlord. The Subordinate Judge, untramelled by the various authorities which can be cited, one way or the other, came to the conclusion on the facts that there had been no dispossession by the landlord. I see no reason why the High Cou...
Bijoychand Mahatab Vs. Kalipada Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal57
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit which has been described by the Courts below as a suit of a novel description. The defendant is in possession of land which originally belonged to the predecessor of the plaintiff, the Maharaja of Burdwan. More than half a century ago, the then Maharaja established an image of Shiva and named it Trilokeswar Shiva after himself. The allegation of the plaintiff is that the land in dispute was made over to the predecessor of the defendant in order that the income might be applied for the worship of the image so established. The Maharaja asserts that about 40 years before the commencement of this litigation, the site on which the temple of Shiva stood was washed away by the river Bhagirathi, that the image itself was broken to pieces, that since that time the broken image has been worshipped by the predecessor of the defendant, that the Maharaja has recently established a new image of Shiva in a newly constructed temple in the sa...
NabIn Chandra Tripati Vs. Prankrishna De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal163,(1914)ILR41Cal108
Stephen and Mullick, JJ.1. This is a partition suit in which the preliminary decree ordered partition with as little disturbance on allotment to the then possession as possible. The Commissioner proceeded to allot the land disturbing the possession of defendants 6 and 7, who were holding land less in amount than what they were entitled to, and without compensating them in land or otherwise for what he deprived them of, and the Munsif adopted this partition. On appeal the Subordinate Judge in allowing the appeal found that the direction contained in the preliminary decree had not been complied with, pointed out how the partition should have been effected, and remanded the suit directing a partition on the lines he indicated. On appeal to us against this order, it is argued that the Subordinate Judge had no power to order this remand, since it is not on a preliminary point under Order XLI, Rule 23, and is not a 'reference of issues to the lower Court for trial under Order XLI, Rule 25. T...
Ratnendra Lal Mitter Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal104
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case is one of a large number of sebaits who worship two family deities and manage the debutter properties dedicated to the gods in tarns settled by Court. The petitioner's last turn of worship and to hold and manage the properties was in 1905-1906. Since then he has had no hand in the management of the properties and it is difficult to say when he will get a turn again as a suit has been instituted to settle a fresh scheme of worship and management. One of the properties dedicated to the gods is bustee No. 112 Machua Bazar Street in the town of Calcutta. The Corporation of Calcutta, by a notice dated the 3rd February 1910, under Section 408 of the Calcutta Municipal Act (Beng. III of 1899), called upon the petitioner as owner to carry out certain improvements in that bustee in accordance with the standard plan prepared by the Corporation. On non-compliance with the notice, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 574 and 408 of the Cal...
Jnanendra Nath Bose Vs. Khulna Loan Co., Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.35
1. This appeal arises out of execution of a mortgage decree. It was directed in that decree that the mortgaged property should be sold and if the proceeds of the sale were insufficient, the balance should be realized from the other properties and the persons of the judgment-debtors. This application was presented more than 12 years after the date of that decree. The learned Subordinate Judge has hold that there were virtually two decrees at that time and that the period of 12 years did not run until what he regards as the second decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, became operative and capable of execution. Accordingly he held that the application was not barred, basing his decision on the case of Chandi Charan Roy haudhuri v. Ambika Charan Butt 31 C. 792.2. The judgment-debtor appeals, and it is argued that the execution is barred. It appears to us that this contention must succeed. The case cited by the learned Subordinate Judge is not an authority for holdi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›