Kolkata Court December 1914 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.
Chwodhury Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Musammat Sheonandan Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal451,28Ind.Cas.426
Richardson, J.1. Out of the 4 bighas claimed by the plaintiff, only a small portion, 2 cottas 10 dhurs, is now in controversy. A partition was effected between the predecessors of the parties in 1851 and this portion of the land was then allotted to the plaintiffs predecessors. Subsequently the whole area claimed was submerged and remained under water till within twelve years of the date of the institution of the suit. Since its re-appearance the defendant has been in possession. A survey was made in or about the year 1000 (during the period of submersion) when the land was recorded in the name of the plaintiff. In regard, therefore, to the area of 2 cottus 10 dhurs the plaintiff has in his favour both the partition title and the survey record. On these facts possession of this area during the period of submersion should have been attributed to him. The learned District Judge in the Court below-referred to the fact that the defendant leased out the fishery rights during the period of s...
Fakir Mohan Das and anr. Vs. Jagabandhu Raut and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal442,28Ind.Cas.430
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for continuation of possession after declaration of the plaintiffs' ryoti right to the land in suit.2. The history of the land is sufficiently set out in the preamble to the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. It appears that in the re visional Settlement after a dispute under Section 103 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the Assistant Settlement Officer found that the plaintiffs-appellants were in possession, but that the respondent No. 1 was a raiyat, so the appellants were recorded as shikmi raiyats under the respondent No. 1, though the parties both deny the relationship of tenant and under-tenant as between themselves.3. The learned Munsif in the first Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, on the ground that they had not succeeded in getting rid of the presumption raised by the Record of Rights. The learned Judge in the Court below has set aside the judgment and decree of the Munsif and has given the plaintiffs a decr...
Debendra Nath Haldar Vs. Bireshwar Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal346,30Ind.Cas.821
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Alipur dated the 13th June 1912. The appellant is defendent No. 1. The plaintiff sued for the recovery of the share which the plaintiff claims in a certain property in the appellant's possession The plaintiff's case is that he and defendant No. 1 are co-sharers and that he is entitled to a one-anna six gandas share in the land in suit. The Courts below have decided in his favour.2. In this appeal it is contended that the learned Subordinate Judge in the lower Appellate Court has wrongly admitted a judgment in a previous suit not inter partes as evidence of an admission said to have been made by the defendant apparently incidentally in the course of that suit. That suit was brought by another person against the present defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge relies upon a certain passage in the judgment as proving an admission made by the defendant. I am of opinion that the judgment was ...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Manmotha Nath Set and Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal728,28Ind.Cas.653
Fletcher, J.1. This case comes before us on a reference made by the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta in his capacity as a Presidency Magistrate under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question referred by the learned Magistrate is not very clearly stated in the letter of reference: but the learned Magistrate has sent a supplemental letter and the question which has to be gathered from the two letters is, whether Section 343 of the Calcutta Municipal Act is applicable when the hut and the land on which it is built belong to different individuals. The case that the Magistrate has before him is a case where the tenant on the land is the owner of the hut and the only question we have to consider is whether, under Section 348 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, the notice can be served upon the person who is the owner of the land. The section says that it may be served upon the owner of the land. The definition of 'owner of land' obviously includes both the landlord and the tena...
Brojendro Kishore Rai Chaudhuri Vs. Khalil Nagarchi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal504,29Ind.Cas.885
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for enhancement of rent, instituted under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The question in controversy is, whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 111.2. Section 111, we quote only so much thereof as is relevant to the question now before us, is in these terms: Where an order has been made under Section 101 directing the preparation of a Record of Rights, then, subject to the provisions of Section 104H, a Civil Court shall not, until three months after the final publication of the Record of Rights, entertain any suit for the alteration of the rent of any tenant in the area to which the Record of Rights applies.' It is not disputed that on the 8th December 1908 an order was made by the then Local Government, that is, the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam, under the provisions of Clause (1) of Section 101. That notification was in these terms: In the exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 101(1) of the ...
Sumeka Dasi Vs. Baikuntha Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal475,30Ind.Cas.607
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof, The case for the plaintiff is that the disputed properties belonged to her husband, and, after his death were held by her jointly with the defendants, who sire relations of her husband. She alleges that in Magh 1307 she was unlawfully dispossessed by the defendants and consequently seeks to recover possession. The Court of first instance held that her title was established and gave her a decree. Upon appeal, the District Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred under Clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order II of the Code of 1908. This objection has been sustained on the ground that in 1910 the plaintiff had sued these defendants and two other persons for joint possession of other lands, which she alleged had been inherited by her from her husband and from which she had been wrongfully evicted by the then defendants. In our opinion th...
Shashi Rajbanshi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal856
Fletcher, J.1. The accused Atlanta, Nani, Shashi, Gopal, Srikanta and Bolai were tried along with seven others, who have been acquitted, with having committed the offence of dacoity.2. The trial took place before the learned Sessions Judge of Murshidabad and a Jury. The six appellants before us were convicted and each sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Against that conviction and sentence they have appealed to this Court. The principal point that has been argued on this appeal is as to the legality of the trial before the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that the accused Shashi was tendered and accepted a pardon under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal. Procedure, on the 21st of April 1914, whilst the proceedings were pending before the Committing Magistrate. The Magistrate subsequently forfeited the pardon granted to Shashi and the magisterial inquiry was recommenced from the stage at which it was interrupted as against Shashi by the tender and acceptance of t...
Badhri NaraIn Singh Vs. Kodo Sah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.138
Coxe, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that a certain deed, of sale, dated the 31st May 1910, is a forged document. The Courts below have held that it was a forged document and the defendants have appealed. The first argument on behalf of the appellants is that the Subordinate Judge on appeal has erred in law, in saying that the burden of proof lay heavily upon the defendants to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that the plaintiff did really execute this kobula. Apparently registration of this kobala was directed under Section 75 of the Registration Act, 1908, and it is argued that the effect of that order of registration was to throw the whole burden of proof in this case on the plaintiff. The learned Pleader for the appellants very frankly concedes that this argument is opposed to the decision in the case of Mohima Chunder Dhur v. Jugal Kishore Bhattacharji 7 C. 736 : 9 C.L.R. 471. Rut it seems to me that in this case the question of the burden of proof ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›