Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 39Ind.Cas.293
1. This Rule is directed against the order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, declining to accept as surety for the good behaviour of the present petitioner a certain Mr. Ahamad. Mr. Ahamad, we are informed, is a Pleader practising in the Police Court in Calcutta. It appears that, under the provisions of Sections 118, 123, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has been required to give security for his good behaviour for a period of three years. From the proceedings taken against him, we learn that it has been found that he is a member of a large gang of swindlers carrying on Operations on a large scale in Chitpore, Cossipore and other parts of Calcutta. It also appears that he is an upcountryman. The reason for refusing the profferred security has been said by the Presidency Magistrate in his order to be the inability of the proposed surety to control the petitioner.2. Before us it has been contended that the inability to control the person required to furnish security i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 38Ind.Cas.341
1. Under the terms of a kabuliyat the defendant was bound to pay additional rent for any area found on measurement to be in excess of the 10 kanis of land leased. There were settlement proceedings under Chapter X, Part II, Section 104 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and no suit was brought under Section 104H to make any alteration in the entry of the rent as settled. Now the rent settled was the rent provided in the lease, Rs. 120, although the land was shown as more than 10 kanis. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the authority of the case of Prosonna Kumar Adhikari v. Rachim-ud-Din Howldar 15 Ind. Cas. 327 : 17 C.W.N. 153. The said case fully supports the decision of the Courts below. It is contended that the said case was wrongly decided and in any case distinguishable. The distinction is that there was a suit under Section 104H in that case whereas there was none in this case. We do not think that distinction material as the only way in which the Record of Rights made under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 36Ind.Cas.829
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of Noakhali dated the 24th January 1913 reversing the decision of the Munsif of the Second Court at Feni The suit was brought by the plaintiff the Maharaja of Tipperah to recover possession of certain lands. The suit has been decided on the question of limitation. The first Court found that the suit was barred by limitation. The second Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation and remanded the case to the first Court for trial on the merits the question we have got to decide is whether the suit was barred by limitation. According to the allegations of the plaintiff in his plaint the defendants were his tenants and they had for many years not paid any rent to him. The defendants denied their liability to pay rent.2. A preliminary issue on the question of limitations was tried and from the evidence which is chiefly documentary it appears I that in certain Settlement proceedings in the year 1894 a contest aro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.295
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the action was brought by the plaintiff against certain persons who were the members of a partnership, one of whom were called Yusnff Musaji, for recovering certain moneys. Yusuff Musaji did not appear in the suit. During the course of the proceedings an order was made on the 19th of March 1915, 'that all matters in difference between the parties in this suit including the question of costs thereof be referred to the final decision of Tribhuban Hira Chand of No. 9, Amratolla Street, in the town of Calcutta, who is to make his award in writing and submit the same to this Court together with all proceedings, depositions and exhibits in this suit within three months.'2. This order was made by the consent of the defendants with the exception of two, whose consent had not been obtained, and one of these two defendants was Yusuff Musaji Saleji. In pursuance of that order the arbitrator entered upon the arbitration and made his award, which was filed on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 38Ind.Cas.318
1. In this case it appears that the petitioners have been convicted under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, in respect of the taking of eight jack fruits. The trees from which these jack fruits were plucked and taken stand, it appears, on a plot in which, on the finding of the Magistrate, the employer of the petitioners has a 4/25th share. The fruits were taken in assertion of the right to share in the proceeds of the plot to, that extent. There is no suggestion that the fruits taken represent more than 4/25ths of the whole. On the whole we think that this is not a case in which criminal dishonesty should have been imputed to the petitioners, and we, therefore, make this Rule absolute and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners.2. The bail bonds of the petitioners will now be discharged....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 39Ind.Cas.465
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This in an appeal from the decision of Chaudhuri, J., given on the 6th December 1915, whereby he directed that an enquiry should be held by one of the learned Judges of the Small Cause Court as to whether sanction should be given to prosecute one Budhu Lal, the plaintiff in the Small Cause Court Suit and the appellant in this Court, upon the materials placed before that Court, and whether the grounds upon which the jurisdiction of the Court was invoked when leave was asked for to institute the said Suit No. 15292 of 1913, are true or untrue.2. We have already disposed of the preliminary point taken by the learned Standing Counsel and held that an appeal lay from the decision of Chaudhuri, J.3. We have now to decide the appeal on the merits.4. I have already sufficiently stated the facts in giving judgment on the preliminary point, and I need not repeat them. The first point which arises is, whether the learned Judge had jurisdiction to make the order in the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 37Ind.Cas.932
D. Chatterjee, J.1. In this case a certain holding was to be re-valued on the expiry of 6 years from the last valuation. The Chairman of the Calcutta Municipality gave a notice under Section 158 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, and the ground upon which the re-valuation was proposed to be made was that the valuation should be on the cost of construction and value of land instead of on the rental value, the premises being now occupied by the owner. The Chairman made a certain valuation, that is to say, fixed a certain value upon which the assessment was to be made. Then under Section 160, a notice of objection was given by the opposite party and the opposite party was given a notice by the Chairman to be present with his evidence to be heard at a certain date before the Deputy Chairman. On the date so fixed, the Deputy Chairman made a valuation, accepting the principle for which the objector contended, that is, upon rental value.2. Against this, there was an appeal to the Small Cause Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 38Ind.Cas.47
1. The first point argued in this case is that the plaintiffs purchased nothing, as the defendants had no right to the ganti tenure which purported to be sold at the auction sale to their vendor. We see from the sale certificate that what was sold was the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtors in a tenure of 649 bighas bearing a jama of Rs. 560 under the ganti of Baikant Banerjee, etc. We think this was sufficient to pass whatever rights the judgment-debtors had in the property named. The Bnerjees had a ganti and the judgment-debtors a darganti consisting of the 649 bighas and other lands. There is no dispute about the identity of the lands. This being so, this point fails.2. The next point is that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the judgment in the case for setting aside the sale to the plaintiff's vendor is a bar to a fresh impeachment of the sale as fraudulent. The defendants applied for setting aside the sale on the ground of fraud and were unsuccessful. They...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 39Ind.Cas.721
Fletcher, J.1. These two Rules were issued, calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decrees of the Court of Appeal below complained of should not be set aside on the ground that they had been passed without jurisdiction. The plaintiff brought two suits to recover rent. The amount of rent claimed in each suit did not exceed Rs. 50. The defence that the defendant raised against the plaintiff's claim was that he was not the tenant of the plaintiff but that he himself was entitled to the land by virtue of a settlement obtained from the superior landlord. The suits, therefore, clearly raised the question as to whether the plaintiff or the defendant was entitled to the land by virtue of a settlement from the superior landlord. In that case, it seems to me that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge clearly had the right to entertain an appeal from the judgment of the Munsif, the Munsif having decided that the settlement was with the defendant and not with the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 37Ind.Cas.835
Fletcher, J.1. This Rule was issued calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge complained of should not be set aside on the ground that no appeal lay to him. The plaintiffs brought a suit to enforce a mortgage security, and obtained an ex parte decree. Under the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, the defendant No. 2 applied to have the ex parte decree set aside. That application was rejected on the ground that the said defendants did not appear in support of it. Against that order of rejection, the defendant No. 2 appealed to the District Judge. The District Judge set aside the order rejecting the application and directed the Court of first instance to hear it on its merits. The present Rule was obtained on the ground that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order rejecting an application made under Order IX, Rule 13, of the Code when it was dismissed for default. No such limitation can be pla...
Tag this Judgment!