Kolkata Court September 1914 Judgments

Kali Mohan Tripura and anr. Vs. Maharaja Birendra Kisore Manikya Bahad ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1915Cal527,31Ind.Cas.391

1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for assessment of rent. The plaintiff came into Court on the allegation that the defendant, a tenant within his estate, had encroached upon the land in dispute and was consequently liable to pay rent in respect thereof. According to the plaintiff, he became aware of the encroachment by the defendant in the course of settlement proceedings in 1897. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that he held the land under a rent-free grant, made to his ancestor in order that a tank might be excavated thereon. He denied that he had encroached on the disputed land and further pleaded that if his rent-free title was not established, the claim for assessment of rent was barred by limitation. The Court of first instance found that the defendant had a rent-free title and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the District Judge has reversed that decision and assessed rent on the disputed land.2. It is plain that this decision cannot be possibly support...

Motookdhari Shukul Vs. Jugdip NaraIn Singh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1915Cal454,28Ind.Cas.343

1. The defendants third party were the tenants of an occupancy holding of 22 bighas and odd in Msouza Roshanpur. They executed a zurpeshgi lease of the entire holding in favour of the defendant 2nd party, who has been found to be a benamidar of defendant first party in 1896, and directed the zurpeshgidar to pay the rent. It has been found that notwithstanding the zurpeshgi the tenants continued in possession somehow or other until 1310) when they fled to smother village. It has been found that the zurpeshgidars's paid the rent from time to time in execution of decrees against the tenants: in one case the dues were deposited after sale. The amounts deposited by the defendant second party from time to time were withdrawn by the plaintiffs, in some cases under protest and in one case without protest, in 1909 the question whether the mortgagee was entitled to deposit the money was fought out in Court and the learned Munsif held that he could deposit under Section 170, Clause (3) and allowe...

In Re: Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act (i of 1877); in Re: A. Ra ...

Court: Kolkata

Chaudhuri, J.1. Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act provides an exceptional remedy. It is in substitution of the prerogative Writ of Mandamus, which our Court on its Original Side had jurisdiction to issue. Five conditions are laid down in the section, provisos (a) to (e), which the applicant invoking this jurisdiction has to satisfy. The conditions are cumulative all of them have to be fulfilled. The remedy is of a summary nature and coercive in character. Being discretionary it must be exercised with caution and the duty sought to be enforced must be clear and obligatory. The first condition is that the applicant has to show a threatened injury to his personal right, that such right does exist and a clear injury must also be shown. He must also show that he has no other specific and adequate legal remedy, and that the remedy applied for will be complete.2. By Section 3 of Act VIII of 1904 power has been given to the University to appoint Professors and Lecturers. By Section 4 the b...