Kolkata Court February 1914 Judgments
Girija Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Chandi Charan Laha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal822,24Ind.Cas.286
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs seek to correct an entry in the Record of Rights to the effect that they are in possession of the disputed land as intermediate tenure-holders without payment of rent though the land is liable to assessment. The plaintiffs assert that the land originally belonged to one Tarini Prasad Mitter in rent free title and that they have acquired title thereto by purchase. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs as also the defendants are part proprietors of the estate which comprises the disputed land. The Subordinate Judge has found that the allegation of rent-free title of Tarini Prasad Mitter has not been established and that there is no reliable evidence to show that the plaintiffs have acquired title to a rent-free tenure by purchase. The position, consequently, is reduced to this, that the plaintiffs have collected rent from the tenants in actual occupation for a long series of year...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gafur Mandal and anr. Vs. Uma Kanta Pandit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal33,24Ind.Cas.266
1. This is an appeal by the first and second defendants in a suit for enhancement of rent under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The substantial question in controversy between the parties is, whether the suit is barred under Section 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That section -provides that where two or more persons are joint landlords, anything which the landlord is, under the Act, required or authorized to do must be done either by both or all those persons acting together or by an agent authorized to act on behalf of both or all of them. The landlord is authorized to institute a suit for enhancement of rent under the provisions of Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Consequently if there are two persons who are joint landlords, a suit of this description must be instituted by them jointly or by an agent authorised to act in this behalf. This position cannot be controverted and is supported by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Jotindra Nath chowdhury v. Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Kumar Chakravarti Vs. Purna Chandra Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal378,24Ind.Cas.232
1. This appeal is directed against an order of remand made by the Court of Appeal below in a suit for recovery of mesne profits. The history of this litigation, which has now lasted for twelve years and has unfortunately not yet come to an end, will be found narrated in our judgment in Bhupendra Kumar Chakravarti v. Puma Chandra Bose 8 Ind. Cass. 34 : 13 C.L.J. 132 : 15 C.W.N. 506. delivered at an earlier stage of these proceedings. The suit was commenced by the respondent on the 12th April 1902 in the Court of the Munsif of Baruipur. The claim was for recovery of possession of land, for mesne profits antecedent to the suit and for mesne profits pendente lite. In so far as the claim for possession was concerned, the plaintiff obtained a decree in the Court of first instance which was confirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge and ultimately by this Court. We are not concerned at this stage with the claim for possession as the decree in that respect has been executed and the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ekbal Singh and ors. Vs. Baldeo Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal791(1),25Ind.Cas.507
1. In this case the plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of possession of land, of which they claimed to be tenants, against the admitted landlords and persons -who also claimed to be tenants. The suit -was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Arrah, and an objection was raised by the defendant that the value of the land, that is the value of the proprietary rights in the land, was over Rs. 1,000 and that the Munsif was, therefore, not competent to try the suit. He held, however, that though the value of the land was over Rs. 1,000, the value of the relief sought was Rs. 126, the amount stated in the plaint, and decreed the suit on the merits. On appeal the point was raised before the Subordinate Judge who held that the Munsif was wrong in looking to the value of the relief sought and had no jurisdiction to try the suit; he, therefore, remanded the case to the Munsif to settle the value of the land.2. In this he was wrong. The case is governed, as he says, by the Court Fees Act, 187...
Tag this Judgment!Abbas Dhali and ors. Vs. Masabdi Karikar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal783,24Ind.Cas.216
1. This appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land raises an important question of limitation. For this purpose the facts found by the Subordinate Judge may be briefly stated. The property originally belonged to a man named Gopal. On the 22nd March 1893 Gopal conveyed the property to two persons, Krishna and Jadu. Notwithstanding this transfer, however, Gopal continued in possession of the property. On the 29th February 1900, Krishna and Jadu, who had never obtained possession of the property, , conveyed it to Ibrahim. Ibrahim also never obtained possession and on the 21st March 1904 conveyed the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff commenced this action on the 14th March 1910 against the defendant who, it has been found, has no title. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit as barred by limitation on the ground that the plaintiff had no possession within twelve years of the date of suit. No reference was expressly made to any provision of the Limit...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Gobinda Mozumdar Vs. Nabadwip Chandra Pal, Chairman, Kumarkhali ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal802,31Ind.Cas.10
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for cancellation of latrine tax, for refund of the amount realised from him and for damages. The case for the plaintiff is that be has been made liable for latrine tax in respect of holding No. 466 in ward No. 2 within the Kumarkhali Municipality, although that holding was not liable to be assessed with latrine tax under Section 321 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884. He seeks to make the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Municipality as also the Municipal Corporation responsible for his claim. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit as against the Chairman and Commissioners personally, but allowed the plaintiff a decree as against the Corporation. Upon appeal by the Municipality, the suit has been dismissed by the District fudge and the cross-appeal of the plaintiff to hold the Chairman arid the Commissioners personally liable has also failed. On the persent appeal, the judgment of the District Judge has been challenged on the'...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Bhusan Mandal Vs. Ram Sebak Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal71(2),24Ind.Cas.181
1. S.A. No. 1307 of 1912. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof. The property originally belonged to one Raghu Nath Mandal, and after his death passed by successive devolution to the representatives of three of his sons. The plaintiff is entitled to a three-eighths share as the representative of one of these sons. The eighth defendant as representative of another son is entitled to another three-eighths share. The remaining one-fourth share is vested in defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 who represent the branch of the third son. The sixth defendant is a tenant in actual occupation who was brought on the land by the predecessors of the plaintiff and the eighth defendant. The Courts below have found that the sixth defendant was sued for rent by the plaintiff, and in answer pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. This plea prevailed, and the Court dismissed the suit...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Behary Bhattacharya Vs. Panchanan Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal846,24Ind.Cas.262
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit which was instituted under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for amendment of an entry in a Record of Rights, and has been transferred to the Civil Court for trial under the proviso to that section. The case for the plaintiff is that the disputed land was the rent-free tenure of one Ram Kumar Bhattacharjee who died leaving a widow, Durgamoni upon whose death, the plaintiff became the nearest reversionary heir. Subsequently as one Rash Behary Bhattacharjee got Letters of Administration to the estate left by Ram Kumar Bhattacharjee, the plaintiff, in order to fortifiy his title, took a conveyance from him on the 1st July 1899. The case for the defendants is that the disputed land was the rent-free tenure of Rajbullabh Bhattacharjee, from whose descendant, Abhoy Charan Bhattacharjee, they purchased the property under an unregistered conveyance, dated the 8th April 1862. The Court of first instance made a decree in favour of the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Manik Biswas and ors. Vs. Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal704,24Ind.Cas.283
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs tenants in a suit instituted by them against their landlord under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs seek an amendment of the Record of Rights in so far as an entry has been made therein to the effect that they are liable to pay Rs. 32-1-4gundas as rent in respect of an area of 47 bighas and odd. The Special Judge has held that the rent payable by the plaintiffs is, as alleged by them, Rs. 18-9-12 gundas, but that they are also in occupation of land not comprised within their tenancy. On behalf of the tenants, it is contended that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to hold that they are in occupation of excess lands and that the entry, as made by the Settlement Officer, should be amended by the substitution of Rs. 19-9-12 gundas for Rs. 32-1-4 gundas On behalf of the landlord respondent, it is contended, by way of cross-appeal, that inasmuch as it has been found that the tenants are in occupation of excess lands, the inferenc...
Tag this Judgment!Sardhari Sah Vs. Hukum Chand Sah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal876
Coxe, J.1. The petitioner in this case obtained a decree for sale on a mortgage and the property was advertised for sale on the 18th April 1912. The opposite party, Surajmal Marwari, claims to be the landlord of the judgment-debtor and he objected to the description of the property as being the mokarrari maurusi property of the judgment-debtor, inasmuch as he contends that the judgment-debtor is a mere tenant-at-will. Various references were made to the landlords and the executive authorities and ultimately the petitioner came up to this Court and obtained a Rule on the opposite party to show cause why the property should not be sold. The order ultimately passed on that Rule ran as follows:2. After some discussion the decree-holder, petitioner has agreed that the objector zemindar shall be discharged from the record and that the' property shall be put up for sale as described in the mortgage-decree.3. Let the opposite party, Surajmal Marwari, be discharged from the record and the prope...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »