Kolkata Court March 1915 Judgments

Naba Gopal Goswami Vs. Sri Gopal Alias Ram Gopal Bhattacharjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.14

1. This appeal arises out of an application for revocation of Letters of Administration granted to one Ram Gopal Bhattacharjee in respect of the Will by one Raghupati Bhattacharjee, his deceased brother. An application was made in August 1896 and in this application the only heir left by the deceased was not named, nor was any citation issued upon her. Upon ex parte evidence of another brother of the applicant named Sripati Bhattacharjee Letters of Administration were ordered to be granted. Immediately thereafter, the learned Judge was informed by an anonymous letter that there was a daughter in existence and that the Will was not a genuine one. The learned Judge then issued notice upon the maternal uncle and the maternal grandmother of the daughter of the deceased. The maternal uncle Durga Das then made an application on his behalf for the revocation of the Letters of Administration which had not then been issued. Durga Das thereafter made an application for the appointment of a guard...

NobIn Chandra Chowdhury and ors. Vs. BepIn Chandra Roy Chowdhury

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.308

N. Chatterjea, J.1. The question raised in this Rule is, whether an appeal lay against an order of the Munsif refusing to set aside a sale held in execution of a decree passed in a suit for recovery of rent, in which the amount claimed did not exceed fifty-rupees, the Judicial Officer, who passed the decree and order, having been empowered to exercise final jurisdiction under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The determination of the question depends upon whether the order of the Munsif has decided a question relating to title to land or to some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto, within the meaning of Section 153 of the Act.3. Now, the Full Bench in the case of Kali Mandal v. Ramsarbaswar Chakrabarti 32 C. 957 : 1 C.L.J. 476;9 C.W.N. 721 held that an order setting aside or declining to set aside a sale in execution of a decree for rent (where the decree-holder is the purchaser) is an order deciding a question relating to title to land as betwe...

Meher Ali and anr. Vs. Kalai Khalashi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.461

1. This is an appeal by the defendants in an action in ejectment. The ancestor of the defendants executed a kabulyat in favour of the plaintiff on the 1st June 1889 in respect of the disputed land, which covers an area of six cottas. The original tenant died in 1910. On the 4th April 1911, the plaintiff commenced this action to eject the defendants who are his descendants, on the ground that as the household interest was not heritable, they had no right to remain in occupation of the land. The Courts below have decreed the suit. In support of the present appeal, it has been urged that the plaintiff was a raiyat at a fixed rate of rent and was competent to create, as he did, a permanent heritable interest in favour of his grantee, although the latter was an under-raiyat. It has not been disputed by the respondent, and in view of the decision in Hari Mohan v. Atal Krishna Bose 23 Ind. Cas. 925 (Rule No. 1260 of 1913 decided on the 17th June 1913) it cannot be disputed, that this result w...

Suradhani Debya Vs. Chandra Nath Pramanik and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.131

1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye. It appears that, on the date finally fixed for the hearing, the plaintiff applied for postponement on several grounds. That application was rejected. Then the plaintiff applied for leave to with draw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there were no sufficient grounds for allowing, the plaintiff to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit, and he made an order allowing the application for withdrawal without permission to institute a fresh suit. It appears that subsequently several applications were made by the plaintiff for setting aside that order, the last application being dated the 10th of August 1914 by which he treated the suit as not disposed of by the previous order and prayed the Court to proceed with the suit. That was rejected. Now the Court having been of opinion that leave should...

Jogendra Chandra Banerjee Vs. Phani Bhushan Mookerjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.810

Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 3 against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan modifying the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought by the original plaintiff, Khantamoni Debi, for declaration of title to the property in suit.2. The defendant No. 2 was the son of the original plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 was a mortgagee under him and the defendant No. 3 was the purchaser in execution of the property under a decree founded on the mortgage in favour of the defendant No. 1.3. The allegations in the plaint alleged that the property formed the stridhan of Manikmani and passed on her death to her two daughters, the 2nd daughter's share reverting on her death to the original plaintiff, her sister. This is the title set up in the plaint and on which the present suit must stand or fall. No case was set up in the plaint nor was any issue framed as to whether or not the original plaintiff had obtained a title to the property by adverse possession. ...

Emperor Vs. Nogendra Nath Sen Gupta

Court: Kolkata

Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. On the evening of November 25th last, at or about 7-30, two bombs were exploded in a lane off Harrison Road known as Mussalmanpara Lane. It resulted in the death of a Police officer, Ram Bhujan Singh, and in severe injuries to two other Police officers, Monoranjan Chuekerbutty and Someswar Dutt Panday, and also to a man named Harabilas Ghosal.2. Of the two bombs one was thrown through the open street door into a room of the house No. 10-4-1, Mussalmanpara Lane, the other struck the front wall of the house to the west of that door. It is the prosecution's case that both bombs were thrown by a party of three or more Bengali youths in furtherance of the common intention of all and that the accused Nogendra Nath Sen Gupta not only was of the party, but actually threw one of the bombs, might charges have accordingly been framed against the accused Nogendra Four impute to him that he himself threw' a bomb, the other four impute to him' that it he did not throw the bo...

Mohendra Nath Mandal and anr. Vs. Narendra Krishna Chatterjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.399

Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Hughly, dated the 8th July 1913, affirming the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover certain instalments in respect of the drainage charge. The facts which are simple appear to be as follows: The defendants' father sold the property to the plaintiff. He concealed from the plaintiff at the time of sale the fact that the property was subject to the drainage charge. The plaintiff on his purchase granted a tenancy of the property to the defendants' father and he now sues the defendants in respect of the moneys that he has paid as such charge. As regards the claim, if it had been against the estate of the father of the defendants, apparently that would be barred under the provisions of the law of limitation, but the plaintiff claims to recover these instalments under the provisions of the Bengal Drainage Act. The only question that has been raised is as to whether,...

Shaik Galim and anr. Vs. Sadarijan Bibi and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.621

ORDER1. This is a reference by the Munsif of Iswarganj in a suit instituted before him as a Small Cause Court suit.2. The plaintiffs allege tbatfout of Rs. 150, the nominal consideration for a mortgage by conditional sale in favour of the defendants, the plaintiffs received only Rs. 104. The suit was brought to recover the balance together with interest and Rs. 11 as compensation. When the case came on for hearing, one of the defendants admitted that the plaintiffs had not received the full amount of the consideration but only Rs. 104.3. The questions referred by the Munsif are:4. (1) Whether a mortgagor can sue for the recovery of the balance of the mortgage-money not paid to him.5. (2) If so, whether such a suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.6. In regard to the first question it, is clear that the claim to which it refers can only be regarded as a claim for the specific performance of so much of an agreement to lend money as has not already been performed. Authority shows ...

Hankar Rai Vs. Kamta Proshad Sahu and anr

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.875

1. The simple question which arises in this second apeal is the same as that which was decided in the Court of Appeal below, namely, whether defendant No. 1 not having set up his alleged prior lien in the suit brought by Gopal Sahu to which he was made a party, is precluded from raising the plea in the present suit. On the authorities cited by the learned Judge in the Court below in his judgment and on the further authority of the Judicial Committee in the case of Mahomed Ibrahim Hossein Khan v. Ambika Pershad Singh 14 Ind. Cas. 496 : 11 M.L.T. 265; (1912) M W.N. 367 : 9 A.L.J. 332 : 14 Bom. L.R. 280 : 16 C.W.N. 505 : 15 C.L. J, 411 : 39 C. 527 (P.C.) : 22 M.L.J. 468 we are clearly of opinion that the learned Judge in the Court below was right when he says that these decisions clearly lay down that a subsequent mortgagee, who has been made party to a suit on a prior mortgage but who has failed to appear, cannot afterwards aise the plea that he had paid off a prior lien and was, therefo...

Khemesh Chandra Rakshit Vs. Abdul Hamid

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.350

In No. 1419.1. The question for decision in this appeal is, what is the extent of share which passed to the plaintiff, at a sale held under Section 13 of Act XI of 1859.2. It appears that a 14 annas 9 pies share of an estate belonged to one Mofizar Rahaman.3. Mofizar Rahaman died leaving two sons, Fazor Rahaman and Dula Meah, a widow and three daughters, Under the Muhammadan Law the two sons got one half (a quarter each) and the widow and the daughters the other half of the estate. On the 29th October 1886 Fazor Rahaman got himself and his brother Dula Meah, who was then a minor, registered in the Collectorate with respect to the whole of the 14 anna 9 pies share, ignoring his mother and sisters who may be conveniently referred to as the females.4. These females, however, on the 21st March 1898 obtained an order for registration of their names in respect of one-half of 14 annas 9 pies share, that being their shares in, the estate left by Mofizar Rahaman.5. On the 7th June 1893, the pla...