Kolkata Court April 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.
Pitambar Mahapatra Vs. Bhagabat Lal, on His Death His Heirs and Legal, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal654,24Ind.Cas.860
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court of Midnapore, dated the 25th April 1910, reversing the decision of the Munsif. Only one point arises in this appeal on the judgments of the lower Courts and that is whether the present suit is barred by limitation, and that depends upon a consideration of the question whether or not the present suit comes within Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Article 3 of Schedule III is in these words : To recover possession of land claimed by the plaintiff as a raiyat or an under-raiyat the period of limitation is two years from the date of dispossession. It is not denied in this case that the defendant No. 1 is the landlord, and the present plaintiff claims to be a raiyat. It is said that that Article does not apply because the plaintiff obtained possession of the holding in certain execution proceedings under a decree in a suit for rent which was brought by the defendant No. 1 against ...
Gopeshwar Pal Vs. Jiban Chandra Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal806,(1914)ILR41Cal1125
Jenkins C.J., Stephen Woodroffe, Holmwood and D. Chatterjee, JJ.1. Owing to a difference of opinion, a point of law has been stated by Mr. Justice Fletcher and Mr. Justice N.R. Chatterjea under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the appeal has accordingly been heard upon that point only by five of the other Judges of the Court. The point of law stated is whether the decision of the majority in the case of Manjhoori Bibi v. Akel Mahumed (1913) 17 C.W.N. 889 has been affected by the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal (1913) I.L.R. 33 All. 227 L.R. 40 I.A. 74. The actual decision of the majority in Manjhoori Bibi's Case (1913) 17 C.W.N. 889. was that the special rule of limitation extended to under-raiyats by the amendment in 1908 of the 3rd Article in the 3rd Schedule of the Bengal Tenancy Act did not apply, where the dispossession was in 1898 and the suit for recovery of possession was instituted on the 25th of August, 1908.2. The judgment of ...
Midnapore Zemindary Company, Ltd. Vs. Hrishikesh Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal757,(1914)ILR41Cal1108
Jenkins, C.J., Stephen, Woodroffe, Holmwood and D. Chatterjee, JJ.1. The question referred for the decision of the Fall Bench is whether the right of a non-occupancy raiyat is heritable. In Karim Chowkidar v. Sundar Bewa (1896). I.L.R. 24 Calc. 207 it was held by a Division Bench that the right of a non-occupancy raiyat (who does not hold under any express agreement) in his holding is not heritable. In arriving at this conclusion, Mr. Justice Banerjee says that 'under the law as it stood before the Bengal Tenancy Act was passed, non-occupancy raiyats not holding under any express engagements, were treated as tenants-at-will or as tenants from year to year. [See Act X of 1859, Section 25; see also the observations of Mr. Justice Field in his Introduction to the Bengal Regulations, p. 40, and those of Mr. Justice Trevor in Thakooranee Dessee v. Bisheshur Mookerjee (1865) B.L.R.F.B. 202; 3 W.R. (Act X) 29.] Under the old law, non-occupancy raiyats were the lowest class of raiyats and, if ...
Kunja Behari Seal Vs. Raja Durga Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.819
Fletcher, J.1. The only question arising for our decision in the present appeal is whether the minerals lying beneath the Mauza Jitpore' in the Fergana of Jheria passed to the ancestor of the Tewari defendants by a Mogoli Brahmottar grant at a rent of Rs. 16 a year by the ancestor of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff has acquired annas 15-2 1/2 gandas in the sub-soil of the mauza from the Tewaris and brought the suit for the declaration of his title to such share. His claim was resisted by the contesting defendants on various grounds, the only one of which it is now material to consider is the defence that the Brahmottar granted by the ancestor of the defendant No. 1 to the ancestor of the Tewari defendants, did not pass the minerals to the grantee. The evidence before us is small and the case largely depends upon what are the proper inferences of fact to be drawn from certain admitted facts.2. There is no document evidencing the grant of the Brahmottar although it would appear that i...
The Midnapore Zemimdari Company, Ltd. Vs. Hrishikesh Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.562
1. The question referred for the decision of the Full Bench is whether the right of a non-occupancy raiyat is heritable. In Karim Chowkidar v. Sundar Bewa 24 C. 207 : 1 C.W.N. 88, it was held by a Division Bench that the right of a non-occupancy raiyat (who does not hold under any express agreement) in his holding is not heritable. In arriving at this conclusion, Mr. Justice Banerjee, J., says that 'under the law as it stood before the Bengal Tenancy Act was passed, non-occupancy raiyats not holding under any express engagements are treated as tenants-at-will or as tenants from year to year see Act X of 1859, Section 25; see also the observations of Mr. Justice Field in his Introduction to the Bengal Regulations, page 40, and those of Mr. Justice Trevor in Thakooranee Dossee v. Bisheshur Mooherjee 3 W.R. Act. X, 29 : B.L.R. Sup. 202 . Under the old law non-occupancy raiyats were the lowest class of raiyats and if the respondent's contention be correct it would follow that all raiyati h...
Sukar Hajam and anr. Vs. Oli Mohammad Mea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.826
Woodroffe, J.1. In this case a Rule was granted on the ground that it was alleged that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The objection is based upon the ground that the suit which is one to enforce an award, is not within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court.. It is noted in passing that this point of jurisdiction was not taken before the Judge, There appears to be no ground for it. The learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the parties who obtained this Rule, concedes that there is no direct statutory authority or precedent in support of his proposition. But it is argued inferentially that the suit is without the cognizance of the Small Cause Court, because we must take it that a suit to enforce an award is the same as a suit to enforce a contract.2. Mukherjee, J., pointed out in the decision in Bhajahari Sahd Banikya v. Behary Lall Basak 33 C. 881 : 4 C.L.J. 162 that a suit to enforce an award and a suit to enforce a contract are not the same. Moreover...
Gopeshwar Pal Vs. Jiban Chandra Chandra and ors. and Srikanta Lohar an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.37
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the District Judge of Bankurah, dated the 12th of April 1911, reversing the decree passed by the Court of the Munsif of the first Court at Bishanpur. The suit was brought for declaration of title to and possession of a certain piece of land of an area about 10 bighas.2. The land in dispute was originally Ghatwali land held by one Kali Lohar, the Ghatwal. In the year 1866 the Ghatwal granted to the plaintiff's great-grandfather a temporary lease of the land in dispute of cultivating purposes.3. In the year 1874 a renewed lease was granted to the plaintiff's grandfather by a registered document. On the 1st-of April 1879 documents were executed purporting to convert the holding into mokarari.4. In the year 1902 the Ghatwali land was resumed by the Maharaja of Burdwan and the Maharaj settled the land with the former Ghatwal Kali Lohar in May 1902.5. On the 28th June 1903, Kali Lohar sold the lands to the contesting de...
Ashraf Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal784,(1915)ILR42Cal25
Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ.1. This was a Rule: calling upon the District Magistrate of Chittagong to show cause why the petitioners should not be admitted to bail. It is opposed by the crown represented by the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer, and the District Magistrate has submitted an explanation in which he points out that one of the accused who was captured at the time has made a long confession implicating himself and the other persons who are now praying for bail before this Court, that the confession has been corroborated to a certain extent by evidence which has been recorded by the Magistrate, who was enquiring into the case, and in a few days' time Mr. Higgins, the complainant, who was assaulted, will be in a position to give his evidence and we do not know what light it may throw on the matter. But what we have to consider in this case is whether the corroboration is in the nature of material corroboration at law, and from the account which has been placed before us by th...
FaizuddIn Khan and ors. Vs. Reju Akab and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal653,28Ind.Cas.22
1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of certain lands after establishment of their khamar right to the same. The title to the land, according to the plaintiffs, is made out as follows. It unquestionably at one time belonged to a lady named Monsa Bibi. She died leaving a son Rajabdi and two daughters, Mogul Bibi and Jolusi. Mogul was married to one Ali Manjhi. In this state of: things, the property devolved as to eight annas on the son and as to the remaining eight annas, in equal shares, on the two daughters. Mogul's husband obtained a money-decree against Rajabdi and in execution of that decree, the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor in the eight annas was sold to the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3. This was in 1908. Subsequently, the eight annas of the two daughters was acquired by private sale, four annas of Mogul being purchased by plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, and that of Jolusi by plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5. Thus the pl...
Mohammed AshrafuddIn and ors. Vs. Sheikh Kareem Buksh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal118(2),24Ind.Cas.603
ORDER1. We do not think that this is a case which calls for our interference. If there has been any technical irregularity, which we do not say there has been, it is clear from the findings on the evidence recorded before the Jury that there was a bona fide claim of private right raised by the second party, and where that is the case, the Magistrate cannot make an order under Section 133 but should leave the determination of the question to the Civil Court. See Queen-Empress v. Bissesur Sahu 17 C. 562. This is a case where the second party who raised the question of private right is supporting the order of the lower Court, and the person who originally asked for the obstruction to be removed as detrimental to the public interests, is now strenuously arguing before us that we ought to allow the Magistrate to enter into a second enquiry to establish what really amounts to his private right to take carts along the alleged road. It is not as if there was no evidence on the record. The effe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »