Kolkata Court June 1915 Judgments
Ananda Kumari Debi Vs. Durga Mohan Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.1
1. The plaintiff, opposite party, brought a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money alleged to be due from the deceased husband of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was declared a disqualified proprietor under Section 6(a) of Act IX of 1879 (B.C.), which relates to females declared by the Court incompetent to manage their own property, and her estate which she inherited from her husband, is in the hands of the Court of Wards. She was not, however, described in the suit as a Ward of the Court nor was she sued as represented by the manager of the Court of Wards as her guardian, as required by Section 51 of the Act. She objected to the frame of the suit on that ground, but her objection was overruled by the Small Cause Court Judge who held as follows: 'The contention of the defendant as to the frame of the suit, is not very fatal. There can be no difficulty to pass a decree against the assets of the deceased debtor. Whether his estate under the management of the Court of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohunt Krishen Doyal Gir Vs. Irshad Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.965
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This suit was instituted by Mohunt Krishna Doyal Gir against Irshad Ali Khan and Ali Nabi, and by the plaint a declaration is sought that the plaintiff is owner of 13 annas of Haria asli mai dakhili, Pargana Shergati under kobalas dated the 21st February 1888 and 21st February 1889, and under an ijara of 12th March 1889 and a Kobala of the 25th July 1904 is owner of 1 anna 6 dams and 5 cowris and ijaradar of 1 anna 13 dams 15 cowris. In other words, he seeks to establish his present right to 16 annas in one capacity or the other and on the strength of this he prays that his possession of the 16 annas may be confirmed or restored to him. This suit was heard by the Subordinate Judge, first Court, Gaya, by whom it was dismissed. The appeal was heard by N. Chatterjea and Walmsley, JJ., who agreed so far that they passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour to the extent of the 1 anna 6 dams 5 cowris. But as to the rest they were at variance, for while Chatterjea, J.,...
Tag this Judgment!Ashmatulla Sircar and ors. Vs. Pan Mahmud Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1915
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.343
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from, a decision of the learned District Judge of Rungpore reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The appellants before us are the judgment-debtors, the respondent being the decree holder. The only point that is involved in this appeal is whether the judgment-debtors are agriculturists and, as such, are entitled to claim exemption of six corrugated iron huts which have been attached in execution of, a decree against them. Section 60(c) of the Code protects from attachment in execution of the whole house occupied by an agriculturist, the common agriculturist such as lives in this country, that is, the raiyat who tills the field. The class of tenantfarmer in the western countries is practically unknown here. These alleged agriculturists in the present case have a small cultivation in the land; but apparently they have been engaged in the jute business and also as middlemen. The learned Judge has, on the evidence before him, found that these peop...
Tag this Judgment!Deb Nath Das Bairagi and ors. Vs. Ram Sundar Barman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.579
1. This is an attempt to revise a decision passed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The way it is sought to make this application one under Section 115 is as follows: It is said that the Judge has made a statement as to an alleged admission which is inaccurate. He says in the judgment that the defendants concede, however, that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land as a bhag tenant. It is said that that is not a fact and that no reference to tenancy is made in the pleadings. That appears to be so. But what was admitted was that the plaintiff was in possession as an adhiar. The question which is raised on that point is whether the adhiar is a tenant or a labourer. If he is a tenant, then his possession would be protected under Section 9. If a labourer, it would be otherwise. In the first place, there is no affidavit before us that an adhiar in tin's part of the country means a labourer 'and not a tenant.' There is, on the contrary, a statement in the affidavit th...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Barkat Ali and ors. Vs. Basant Nunia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1915
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.356
1. In a Record of Rights published in 1896 the plaintiff was recorded as an occupancy raiyat in respect of a holding of 8 bighas under the 3rd party defendants. It is admitted that in 1909 there was a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, between the plaintiff on the one side and the 2nd party defendants on the other, who are the proprietors and managers of Thikaha Indigo Factory and have obtained a lease from the 3rd party defendants of the mauza in which the plaintiffs' holding falls. In that proceeding the area in dispute was about 5 cottas and in a judgment, dated the 27th September 1909, it was held that the 2nd party defendants were in possession.2. The plaintiff alleges that encouraged by this decision the 2nd party defendants dispossessed him from a further area of 2 bighas odd. The plaintiff accordingly sues for a declaration of his title and recovery of possession.3. The defence of the 2nd party defendants is that the plaintiff has neither title nor possessio...
Tag this Judgment!Rashbehary Lal Mandar Vs. Anand Ram and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.205
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur, dated the 30th of September 1912. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover trom the defendant the sum of Rs. 11,541-2 for principal and interest due on a promissory note dated the 2nd of December 1909.2. The plaintiffs have two firms, one at Bhagalpur and the other at Calcutta. Admittedly, the defendant had dealings with both these tirms.3. The transactions with the Bhagalpur firm of the plaintiffs were adjusted and on the 30th of Bhadra 1314 F. 8., corresponding with the 21st of September 1907, the defendant executed in favour of the plaintiffs a promissory note payable on demand for Rs. 2,542 with interest at 12 annas per cent, per mensem.4. The defendant states that after the execution of this promissory note he made a payment of Rs. 900. There seems to be no truth in this statement.5. The goods taken from the Calcutta shop of the plaintiffs were as follows: On the 10...
Tag this Judgment!Dina Nath Sarma Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Saran Ram Deb Alias Ram Saran D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.277
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent valued at less than Rs. 100. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that no second appeal lies in this case, the only question being as to the amount of rent payable. The case comes from Sylhet and is consequently governed by Act VIII of 1869 (B.C.). An appeal under Section 102 of that Act lies only in cases in which a question of right to enhance or vary the rent of a raiyat or tenant or any question relating to a title to land or to some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto has been determined, by the judgment. In several cases it has been held that no appeal lies under that section in cases in which merely a question as to the amount of rent payable is involved. See the cases of Huro Pershad Chuckerbutty v. Sreedam Chunder Chowdhry 20 W.R. 15; Hurish Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Sreemutty Huree Bewah 20 W.R. 16; Nurubdessur Pershad Roy v. Sheikh Jungole 24 W.R. 49. See...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra NaraIn Sinha Vs. Sheikh Hafijur Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.379
1. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit in which the plaintiff sued the principal defendants for a declaration of his title by adverse possession and for confirmation of possession.2. It was the plaintiff's case that a cloud was thrown upon his title by an entry in the Record of Rights in favour of the principal defendants. The suit has lodged in the first instance before a Munsif. Upon an objection made by the defendants, the Munsif made an inquiry into the valuation of the property, and coming to the' conclusion that the value was Rs. 3,090 he returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to a proper Court. The plaintiff then Hied the plaint before the Subordinate Judge with a Court-fee of Rs. 17-8. Valuing the relief for confirmation of possession, at Rs. 100, he paid Rs. 7-8 as stamp-fee for that relief and for the relief in respect of the declaration he paid a fee of Rs. 10. The Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the plaint was insufficiently stamped and th...
Tag this Judgment!Eusuffzeman Sarkar and ors. Vs. Sanchia Lal Nahata and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1915
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.606
1. The point in this appeal is very narrow and very technical. It is the case of a decree-holder applying for execution of his decree. At the time of the application for execution, he notified to the Court by his application that he had received a certain sum from the judgment-debtor, and the finding of the Court is that that sum had been paid in fast by the judgment-debtor by way of interest on the judgment-debt.2. The decree-holder relies upon this payment as saving limitation and the judgment-debtor replies that it cannot have that effect, because the payment of Rs. 10 by the judgment-debtor was not certified; and in the next place, it did not operate to extend the limitation under the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act. The first point practically is this, that the certification which may be given by the decree-holder under Order XXI, Rule 2, must be a certification on some days or at some time different from that on which the application for execution was made....
Tag this Judgment!William Graham Vs. Phanindra Nath Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.41
1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs claimed a plot of land roughly thirteen kotas in area in Kidderpore, suburb of Calcutta. The plaintiffs derived their title in the following way. At the beginning of the last century the Government constructed a new road in that locality. A survey was made in 1800 and again in 1801 for the purpose of assessing the compensation to be awarded to the persons from whom the lands for the road were taken. It appears that certain side-lands, which had been taken and might subsequently be required for the purposes of the road, were then noted as dar-i-pin lands: the lands which had been taken and which lay outside these dar-i-pin lands were noted as be-darkari or surplus lands and these latter surplus lands were settled with former holders under lakheraj sanads. In 1810 the plaintiffs' ancestor Ram Bhadra Mitra received such a sanad (Exhibit 11) in respect of seven kotas of this surplus land. In order apparently to regularise these ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »