Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1914Cal784,25Ind.Cas.576
1. This is a suit to recover Mas possession of land on the ground that it was held by the defendant on a service tenure, and that the defendant having refused to perform the service the plaintiff is now entitled to recover the land.2. The Munsif decided in the plaintiff's favour. This decree was reversed by the lower Appellate Court, and the decree of reversal has been confirmed by Mr. Justice Richardson on appeal to this Court: From Mr. Justice Richardson's judgment the present appeal has been preferred.3. The plaintiff complains that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court leaves it uncertain whether the land has been held as a service tenure or not, and after the best consideration I have been able to give to this case, I think that is made out. There are expressions in the judgment which may go to show that in the opinion of the learned Subordinate Judge the refusal of the services has not been made out, and so no cause of action is established. On the other hand, there is a some...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1914Cal894,25Ind.Cas.558
1. Both the appeals are dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 28Ind.Cas.576
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mr. Justice Coxe in a suit, under Section 283 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. The plaintiff asks for a declaration that the property in suit belongs to his judgment-debtor and that he is entitled to bring it to sale in execution of this decree. The claim is resisted by a purchaser from the judgment-debtor who contends that the title has vested in him. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge dismissed it. He held that the purchaser had aquired title bona fide for valuable consideration. At the same time he found that the purchaser had paid less than the ordinary market value of the land, he explained this fact on the around that the vendor had retained a right to continue in occupation of the land. On appeal to this Court the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been confirmed by Mr. Justice Coxe.2. On the present appeal, it has been argued that upon the facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 29Ind.Cas.429
1. In Appeals Nos. 120 and 183 of 1911.2. The two suits out of which these two appeals arise (Suits Nos. 331 and 932 of 1909) relate to 650 bighas of coal lands in Mouza Barora appertaining to Pergannah Nawagarh, Kismat No. 3. The zemindari Nawagarh, Kismat No. 3, belongs to Giridhari Singh Thakur, defendant No. 5, he having succeeded to that estate vas the eldest son of Joy Nandan Singh Thakur. It appears that many years ago Pergannah Nawagarh was divided into four kismats, each of which formed a separate estate, and each of which appears to have descended, according to the rule of primogeniture, on the eldest sons. The accompanying genealogical table will show the relationships in the family of the zemindars. The family is governed by the Mitkashara School of Hindu Law. 8 annas of Mouza Barora was vested in Chhatradhari Singh, Nagar Singh, Dukhit Singh and Amrita Kumari as kho poshdars. What their precise interests in the land were, we will discuss later. By a mourusi mokarari patta,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 25Ind.Cas.530
1. This is a suit to recover possession of land. The plaintiffs based their title on a lease, creating a term for one hundred and five years, running from 1862 to 1967. If they acquired the rights created by that lease, then unquestionably. they are entitled to succeed in this suit. They are resisted by the reversioner on the lease who claims that the interest under the lease was neither heritable nor transferable. The case came before this Court and was heard by Mr. Justice Sarada Charan Mittra sitting singly. He remanded the case for the determination of the question as to the interpretation of the document in the light of the conduct of the parties, and in this he seems to have had in view the interpretation of the document in relation to heritability as also transferability. So far as the heritability is concerend, I think there was no necessity to send back the case, for it has been decided by the Privy Council in Maharaja Tej Chand Bahadur v. Sri Kanth Ghose 3 M.I.A. 261 : 6 W.R....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal305
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. The petitioners in this case; who live in Chittagong, are being prosecuted at Lahore for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code, at the instance of the All-India Banking and Insurance Company, Limited, of Lahore, in respect of transactions between the parties. The Company's case is that, under the terms and conditions of the agency entered into between the petitioners and the Company, all accounts had to be rendered, and all moneys collected had to be paid by the petitioners, to the Company at its head office at Lahore, and that being so, the offences alleged are triable at Lahore. The petitioners in their petition aver that the offences, if any were committed within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate of Chittagong, and they by their present application ask us to decide, under Section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as to which Court should try the case. The learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners has mostly pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1914Cal260,25Ind.Cas.571
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of Mr. Justice Coxe by which he has confirmed a judgment of Mr. Roe who had reversed the decision of the Court of first instance.2. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of land from the defendant. The Court of first instance found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the District Judge has reversed that decision and decreed the suit.3. On behalf of the defendant the judgment of the District Judge was assailed before Mr. Justice Coxe on the ground that it was based on evidence not on the record. Attention was drawn particularly to two statements in the judgment. The District Judge states in one place that a previous suit between the parties was compromised. The statement is admittedly' erroneous. The suit to which reference is made, was not compromised, but what is stated to have been compromised was another suit, but the parties to that suit are not before the Court. Mr. Justice ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 25Ind.Cas.543
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of a rent suit valued at Rs. 3. It has already passed through three Courts and is now in the fourth, and unless we can interfere with it, it will go to a fifth Court with the further prospect of going to a sixth and seventh. But we think we can put a stop to this.2. The main contention in this suit was, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the litigants. The Munsif who decided in the defendants' favour held that the defendants and their predecessor had held the land,, for which rent is claimed by the plaintiff, for a long period in the assertion of the malihi right. That conclusion was based on two documents, Exhibits A and B. There was an appeal from the decree of dismissal by the Munsif, and the case came before the District Judge of Chittagong. In the opinion of the District Judge Exhibits A and B are not shown to have any relevance to the case; and, on the strenght of an entry in the khatian and the presumpti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1914Cal842,25Ind.Cas.567
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Mr. Justice Richardson who has reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and passed a limited decree in the plaintiff's favour. This has given rise to two appeals, one by the defendants who claim that the decree of the Subordinate. Judge should not have been disturbed, and another by the plaintiff who claims that the learned Judge was in error inasmuch as he did not establish the petitioner's claim to an additional one-third share over and above the two-thirds decreed.2. The suit is one to recover khas possession of land, and to understand the points in conflict between the parties, it will be convenient to refer to a rough map which has been placed before us. From that it would appear that there is a public road running substantially north and south; that to the west of that road there is a rivulet called the Kondor, that between the road and the rivulet there is a plot of land described as containing 40 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal286
Jenkins, C.J.1. The subject of this litigation is the nimak-sayar mehal of sarkar Champaran, to which the plaintiff, the present owner of the Bettiah Raj. claims to be entitled. The defendant is the zemindar of the village Manpura, within the limits of which the plaintiff claims to exercise the rights that, in her view, appertain to and substantially constitute her mehal. The plaintiff's claim has been embarrassed by the unhappy language in which her plaint was originally framed, for, as expressed, it claims the affirmation of a monopoly. But notwithstanding this the substantial meaning of the document is fairly evident, though it might possibly be misunderstood. We have accordingly allowed an amendment, so that the plaintiff's claim might be formulated in happier and more precise language. It is a mistake to suppose that the plaintiff seeks a monopoly; all she really asks is the affirmation and protection of an exclusive right in accordance with the mode in which it has been exercised...
Tag this Judgment!