Kolkata Court February 1915 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.
Gajadhar Pershad Sahu Vs. Bindubashini Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.181
Sharfuddin, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mozuffarpore, dated the 14th December 1912. The decree-holders are the appellants.2. In order to appreciate the arguments addressed to the Court, I think, it is necessary to refer to the salient facts which resulted in the order appealed against.3. One Sant Protap had two daughters, one of them was named Manjhuri. She died after the decree. The other daughter had two sons, named Baranashiand Bindubashini. This daughter died leaving the two sons named above. Baranashi, one of her sons, is also dead. After Sant Protap's death, his surviving daughter was the holder of his estate with the limited interest of a daughter. His reversioner was Bindubashini. Manjhuri, as observed before, died after the present appellants had obtained a decree against her and the only surviving reversioner, namely, Bindubashini succeeded to the estate of Sant Protap.4. It appears that Manjhuri, during the period she held the estate ...
Biseshwar Ray Chowdhury Vs. Judhisthir Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.437
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, first Court, Baekerganj, varying the decree of the Munsif.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover certain arrears of rent in respect of a piece of land situate in the limits of a Government khas mahal. The plaintiff obtained from the Government what is known as a settlement of a portion of the land within the khas mahal. That settlement, or lease, expired in the year 1313; and then, in accordance with the usual practice, apparently the Government proceeded to re-settle the property with the tenants, and when that was done they granted a fresh settlement to the plaintiff. The settlement to the defendants, who are the tenants, was for an increased rent, and the tenants were entered on the Record of Rights as tenants of one holding. Now the plaintiff in 1316 instituted against the defendants a suit to recover arrears of rent down to 1313. That suit was decreed; then the ...
Ali Mahamud Vs. AftabuddIn Bhuya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.251
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent brought by the plaintiffs as owners of a separate three-annas share in a certain dar pulni tenure against the defendants as their tenants. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit, on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their title to the share of the dar-putni which they claimed. In the lower Appellate Court the learned Subordinate Judge has found on the facts that the plaintiffs have made out their title and has given the plaintiffs a decree for arrears of rent at the rate admitted by the defendants.2. Before us there is no dispute, and under the circumstances there could be no dispute, that plaintiff No. 1 at any rate is entitled to rent in respect of a two-annas share of the dar-putni. The argument which has been addressed to us by the learned Vakil for the defendant No. 1, the appellant before us, has been confined to the defence raised below that Charu, the predecessor of the defendants, purchased one anna ou...
Alejan Bibi and ors. Vs. Raham Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.26
Richardson, J.1. The defendants in this suit are the heirs of an under-raiyat to whom the plaintiffs, as raiyats of the holding in which the land in suit is situated, granted by a written and registered instrument a lease for a term of nine years. The under-raiyat died some years ago and it has been found that the defendants have since been in possession of the land leased to them and have been paying rent therefor to the plaintiffs. The term of nine years has now expired and the suit was brought by the plaintiffs for the purpose of ejecting the defendants from the land comprised in the sublease. In the first Court the plaintiffs obtained a decree, that decree was reversed by the learned Subordinate Judge in the Court of Appeal below and the suit was dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the subtenancy granted to the original under-raiyat came to an end with his death, that the payment by and acceptance of rent from his heirs, the defendants, created a new tenancy as betwe...
Tepu Mahammad Vs. Tefayit Mahammad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.216
Richardson, J.1. The suit relates to two plots of land. It has been found, and is not now disputed, that the plaintiff has a gocid title to the land as a lessee under the zemindar, the Maharaja of Cooch Behar. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are jotedars and their land adjoins the land in dispute. Defendant No. 1 is admittedly a tenant under defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the land comprised within their jote. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to eject defendant No. 1 from the disputed plots of which he is in possession. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 do not contest the plaintiff's claim.2. It appears that defendant No. 1 is prima-faaie a trespasser and that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed, unless some such defence as adverse possession for the statutory period can be established. The first Court decided the suit upon the simple consideration that defendant No. 1, not having been in possession for more than five or six years, was a trespasser. The Munsif, therefore, decreed the plaintiff'...
Monindra Mohan Roy Mukhopadhya Vs. Ram Krishna Sadhukhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.595
Coxe, J.1. The only question that arises in this review is whether a statement by the defendant's aunt, in an application to be appointed his guardian, to the effect that he was born on the 29th Pous 1296, is admissible under Section 32, Clause (5), of the Evidence Act. The District Judge, relying on the decision of Dhanmull v. Ram Chunder Ghose 24 C. 265 : 1 C.W.N. 270 held that the statement was admissible. In appeal we preferred to follow the decision in Ram Chunder Mukhopadhya v. Mohendro Lal Pathuk 17 C. 840 and held that it was inadmissible. The defendant then obtained this Rule to show cause why the decision should not be reviewed and we have now heard both parties again on the point.2. On re-consideration, I think that we are bound by authority to hold that the statement is admissible. The application of the minor's aunt has been put in. The second paragraph contains a statement that the defendant was born on the 29th Pous 1296, and the ninth recites that the applicant is the d...
Keshawe Surendra Sahi and ors. Vs. Rani Devendrabala Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.211
Sharfuddin, J.1. In this appeal the appellant is a minor. He had, on the 10th July 1912, applied under Section 47 and Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale of his properties in execution of a decree on the ground of irregularities resulting in inadequacy of the price fetched at the sale. This petition was put in on his behalf by his mother as guardian and next friend of the minor.2. The decree that brought about the sale was a mortgage-decree, the mortgagor being Baboo Shyam Surendra Sahi, the uncle of the minor. Shorty after the first execution petition the mortgagor died and thereafter on the 22nd March 1909, an application for substitution was made-by the decree-holder. The present appellant is the sole legatee of his uncle, the mortgagor, under a Will. The above application was that the name of the minor, along wifih that of his father, Hari Harendra Sahi, and some others should be substituted. No application, however, was made under Order XXXII, Ru...
Subedar Ahir Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Cal866,28Ind.Cas.668
Fletcher, J.1. The only question raised in the hearing of these two Rules is whether Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises one trial of not more than three offences of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months when the offences have been committed against different persons. The judicial decisions on this (Question are not uniform. In the case of Empress of India, v. Murari 4 A. 147 it was laid down by the Court that 'the combination of three offences of the same kind for the purpose of one trial can only be where they have been committed in respect of one and the same person, and not against different prosecutors.' A different view was taken by this Court in the case of Manu Miya v. Empress 9 C. 371 : 11 C.L.R. 52. The case of Queen-Empress v. Juala Prasad 7 A. 174 : A.W.N. (1884) 321 the next authority in order of date, is not opposed to the decision in Empress of India v. Murari 4 A. 147 for in the case of Quean-Empress v. Juala Prasad 7 A. 174 : A.W.N....
Maharaja Sir Rameshwar Singh Bahadur Vs. Bheekdari Singh and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.505
Sharfuddin, J.In A. No. 208 of 1911.1. This is an appeal against an order oil the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga, passed on an application under Order XL, Rule 1, Civil Procodtire Code. The Maharaja of Darbhanga is the decree-holder and, the respondents are the judgment-debtors.2. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the present appeal, on the ground that the order appealed against was really not an order for the appointment of a Receiver but one granting an application for such an appointment. Reference was made to an order in the order sheet, dated 22nd February 1911, which is to this effect: 'judgment delivered, application for appointment of a Receiver is allowed. case disposed of', and this is followed by the order dated 10th March 1911, which runs as follows: 'Babu Ram Nihara Singh is appointed Receiver.' The reply was that the order of the 22nd February was an order for the appointment of a Receiver and reference was made to Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (s)...
Krishna Kanta Ghosh Vs. Jadu Kasya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1915
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.839
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendants, who are the respondents in this appeal, from a, piece of homestead land, under Section 49, Clause (b), of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff-appellant is a raiyat and his holding consists partly of agricultural and partly of homestead land. He let out the homestead portion to the defendants. Although that portion is not agricultural, the incidents of the sub-lease held by the defendants would be governed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act having regard to the nature of the original tenancy of the plaintiff, and not by the Transfer of Property Act see Balm Ram Roy v. Mohendra Nath Samanla 8 C.W.N. 451 and Abdul Karim v. Abdul Rahman 13 Ind. Cas. 364 : 16 C.W.N. 618 : 15 C.L.J. 672. The defendants are, therefore, under-raiyats and are prima facie liable to be ejected under Section 49, Clause (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants, however, hold lands as a raiyat, not under the same landlord, but under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »