Kolkata Court March 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.
Bato Krishna Rano Vs. Janaki Nath Pande
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.71
1. This Rule raises an important question of first impression, namely, whether it is competent to a patnidar to avail himself of the, provisions of Section 61 of the Bengal Tenancy Act notwithstanding Clause (e) of Section 195. The circumstances under which the question arises for consideration are not disputed and may be briefly stated.2. The plaintiff alleges that he holds a patni talak, that on several occasions he had paid rent to the Mustaphis, that thereafter on the assertion that the estate had been sold for arrears of revenue and that the certified purchaser had conveyed title to him, one Janaki Nath Pandey (the present defendant) had realised rent from him on threat of proceedings under Regulation VIII of 1819 and that recently on the 11th. December 1912 in a suit between the representatives of the original proprietors and the defendant, it was decided that the property was not comprised within the estate sold for arrears of revenue. The plaintiff asserts that, under these cir...
Maninda Chandra Nandi Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal967
Fletcher J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned special Land-Acquisition Judge of 24-Perganas, dated the 8th May 1911. The land which has been 'acquired for a public purpose is a certain piece of bustee land situated in Halsi Bagan within the original jurisdiction of this Court, that is, within the limits of the Presidency town, and the statutory powers under which the land has been acquired are the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 as varied by Section 557 of the Calcutta Municipal Act (Bengal III of 1899). The point that has been argued before us in this appeal turns solely upon the question whether the learned Judge of the Court below placed a right construction on the provisions of that section of the Calcutta Municipal Act and was right in excluding. evidence as to sales of the properties in the neighbourhood which were not sales of bustee lands. The learned Counsel for the appellant conceded that unless he could satisfy us that the learned Special Land-Acquisition Judge...
Behari Lal Mallik Vs. Priya Nath Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.508
1. This appeal is directed against an order by which a Special Judge, under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, has in concurrence with the Settlement Officer dismissed an application by a landlord for settlement of fair and equitable rent under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The applicant in his petition under Section 105 stated that he had a one-fifth have in the revenue-paying estate of which eight other persons, who were joined as co-sharer defendants in these proceedings, held the remaining four-fifths share. The petitioner alleged that the tenant defendant had been recorded in the record-of-rights, which had been finally published on the 15th May 1913, as a mourasi mokarari, tenant in respect of a certain area, thus the tenant was really in occupation of a larger quantity of land than what was comprised in his tenancy, and that the rent was enhance able. The petitioner further stated that his co-sharers had refused his invitation to join him in the application, because t...
Durgi Nikarini Vs. Goberdhan Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal64,24Ind.Cas.183
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for ejectment after service of notice to quit. The question in controversy is whether the notice was sufficient in law. The plaintiff has treated the defendant as a tenant from month to month, entitled to 15 days' notice to quit. The defendant contends that she is a tenant from year to year entitled to six months' notice to quit. The question for determination thus is, what is the true status of the defendant as tenant?2. The land in dispute is comprised in the Bhukailash Debutter Estate and has been let out to ijaradars for a term ever since the 16th December 1870. The first ijara lease expired on the 9th July 1884, and, upon the expiry of the successive ijaras, fresh ijara leases were granted, so that the present ijaradar is the seventh in the series. The defendant came into occupation under a verbal lease on some date, not ascertained, between 1870 and 1884. It has been assumed for the purposes of the present case that her tenancy comm...
Noni Gopal Basu Vs. Taresh Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal563(1),30Ind.Cas.212
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. In my opinion the judgment of Mr. Justice Richardson cannot stand.2. The facts are simple. The manager of an infant used the money of the infant for the purpose of buying property on the infant's behalf at an execution sale. He admits that the infant was the real purchaser, but he maintains that he is able to deprive the infant of the property because of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If that were the true view, then that section of the Code would be the occasion of a grave fraud. It appears to me that the conduct of defendant No. 1, the manager, was and has been found to be fraudulent and Section 317 does not furnish any answer to the plaintiff's claim.3. We must, therefore, reverse the judgment of Mr. Justice Richardson and restore the decree of the Subordinate Judge.4. Defendant No. 1 must pay the costs of this litigation throughout.D. Chatterjee, J.5. I agree....
Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitya Kali Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal693,24Ind.Cas.243
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1311, 1312, 1313 and the first three quarters of 1314 at an annual rate of Rs. 61-6-17 gandas. The defendant resists the claim on the ground that as the plaintiffs have dispossessed her from some land comprised in the holding,- the entire rent has been suspended., The Court of first instance decreed the suit in part. Upon appeal the District Judge has given the plaintiffs a decree for 1311 and has dismissed the claim in respect of the other years.2. On the 19th September 1906 nearly a year and a half before the institution of this suit on the 4th February 1908 the defendant had instituted a suit against the plaintiffs for recovery of certain specified lands, on the allegation that they were included in her tenancy and that the landlords had unlawfully deprived her of their possession. It is not necessary for our present purpose to set out in detail the history of that title suit. It is suffic...
Jotindra Mohun Rai Chowdhury Vs. Brojekdra Kumar Datta Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal728,24Ind.Cas.249
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order by which the Court of appeal below, in reversal of the decision of the Court of first instance, has dismissed an application to set aside an execution sale. The facts have not been investigated by the Subordinate Judge, but he has held that as there is no allegation or proof of fraud subsequent to the sale, the application is clearly barred by limitation. We must, consequently, for the purpose of tin's Rule, assume that the facts as alleged by the judgment-debtors-petitioners have been established.2. On the 11th August 1908 the landlords obtained an ex parte decree for rent against the tenants. On the 6th May 1909 they applied for execution of this decree. The sale took place on the 23rd June 1909, and it is alleged that the decree-holders purchased the property in the nam.3 of one Armanullah. It also appears from au examination of the record, although no reference has been made to this circumstance in the judgment of either of the C...
Sanyasi Charan Mandal Vs. Asutosh Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal482,(1915)ILR42Cal225
Mookerjee, J.1. Have you got the account books here showing the funds?]2. The receiver is in attendance here and says that these account books are in the lower Court.Mookerjee, J.3. How do you propose to get over the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act?4. All the property vests in the Receiver: see Lovell and Christmas v. Beauchamp [1894] A.C. 607.Mookerjee, J.5. Only the interest of the person declared insolvent vests in the receiver.]6. The Trustee in Bankruptcy takes four-fifths share, i.e., of the insolvents, and as receiver takes charge of one-fifth share of the minor till his status is decided in a title suit.Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.7. These appeals are directed against an order under Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907. The circumstances under which the order in question has been made may be briefly narrated. One Bhuban Mohan Mandal left five sons: Nil Ratan, Amulya Charan, Satya Charan, Fatick Charan and Sanyasi Charan. During his life...
Bateman Vs. Bateman and Nicachi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal963
Chitty, J.1. In this case the petitioner, M.E. Bateman, prays for a dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, G.E. Bateman, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent, A.S. Nicachi. The present application is presented by the respondent asking that the petitioner may be required to give security for a sum to meet her costs of suit. The parties are domiciled in this country, and it is conceded that the petitioner's income is Rs. 450 a month, and that he is at present making his wife an allowance of Rs. 75 a month. It is not suggested that she has any separate property or means of her own. The application is resisted by the petitioner, and his counsel relies on the case of Proby v. Proby (1879) I.L.R. 5 Calc. 357. In that case it was held that such an order should be made under special circumstances only; but I do not read that judgment as altogether debarring this Court from the exercise of the discretion which it must undoubtedly exercise in deciding applications of th...
Doyal Chandra Mandal Vs. Kauri (Charan) Naskar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal775,25Ind.Cas.534
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against an order by which his application for execution has been dismissed, on the ground that the decree is vague and indefinite and is incapable of execution. The decree was made on the 26th June 1907 in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property which had been dismissed by the Court of first instance but was decreed on appeal. The decree is in these terms: 'The claim of the plaintiff is decreed; let it be declared that the land within the boundaries mentioned below and measuring 145 bighas is the mourasi mokarari leasehold land of the plaintiff-appellant; let the plaintiff-appellant obtain possession of the land mentioned and let it be declared that the southern boundary of the decreed land is the land of Debnarain Naskar.' In a schedule to the decree the boundaries were described in these terms: Southern boundary: The leasehold land of Dharmadas Mandal recently purchased by Haribrahma. Eastern boundary: The western bank of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »