Kolkata Court December 1916 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.
Kristadhan Ghose Vs. Golam Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.862
1. This is an instance of the various subterfuges that have been devised to evade the salutary provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. Two occupancy holdings were amalgamated in 1301 B. S., without any registered document, the lands remaining the same but the consolidated jama being an enhancement of more than 2 annas in the rupee on the old jama. The lower Courts have given a decree on the old state of things.3. It is contended before us that there ought to have been a finding as to whether the landlord and the tenant intended by this amalgamation to create a new tenancy. This was never the case of the appellant in the Courts below. In the first Court, his case was that the tenant was a non-occupancy-raiyat and that, therefore, he was liable to pay at the rate at which he had been paying for more than three years and that failing; his contention was that he was entitled to realise rent at the enhanced rate under proviso (1) to Section 29.4. Both the grounds failed on the Courts decidi...
Chinta Hararan Das and ors. Vs. Radha Charan Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.962
1. The plaintiff-respondent brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration of his title to and recovery of khas possession of the land in suit. Defendants Nos. 1 and 41 contested the suit. The former claimed the land as appertaining to his estate. The latter supported the former and pleaded that he had taken settlement from him (the defendant No. 1) and had been holding under such settlement for over 12 years. The Court of first instance found the question of title in favour of the plaintiff. There was khas allegation in the plaint that there was an ijara lease of the land in favour of defendant No. 41 up to 1316, but that it was surrendered by him (the defendant No. 41) after service of notice, before the institution of the suit. The Court of first instance held that the relinquishment had not been proved, and passed a decree declaring the plaintiff's title to the land and for possession through defendant No. 41 till 1318. That decree was set aside on appeal and t...
Upendra Nath Ghose Vs. Sarada Sundari Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.883
1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for rectification of an entry in the Record of Rights describing the defendants as tenure holders. Plaintiff asserted that the defendants were raiyats without any transferable right. The Courts below found that the presumption arising from the entry in the Record of Rights bad not been rebutted and the suit was accordingly dismissed.2. The only question thus has been argued before us is that the Court of first instance wrongly disallowed certain interrogatories which the plaintiff wanted to deliver to the defendants. Now under Order XI, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, on an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court.' That was done in the present case. It is true the Munsif did not state in the order the reasons why he disallowed the interrogatories, but the learned District Judge points out that they were ...
Panchanon Choudhury and ors. Vs. Ramendra Sundar Tribedi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.895
1. The defendants Nos. 1 to 6 were the zemindars of a mahal, which was let out in putni to the plaintiffs. These zemindars had three kutcheries,--the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had one kutcheri, defendants Nos. 3 to 5 had another near by, and defendant No. 6 had a third, and they used to realise the putni rent in certain proportions. They, however, joined in making an application for the sale of the putni under Regulation VIII of 1819 for arrears of rent for 1318 and the putni was sold and purchased by defendant No. 7. The plaintiffs brought a suit for setting aside the sale, and it has been held by both the Courts below that the notice required by Section 8 of the Regulation to be served on the sudder kutchery of the zemindar was served on the kutchery of defendants Nos 1 and 2, as also on the kutchery of defendant No. 6, but was not stuck up at the kutchery of defendants Nos. 3 to 5. The learned Subordinate Judge held that, as the kutchery of defendants Nos. 3 to 5 was adjacent to that ...
Srimati Ramada Sundari Mandal and ors. Vs. Shyama Kanta Chakrabartty a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.939
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition and the appeal is against a preliminary decree passed in the suit. The subject-matter of partition is a small piece of land comprised in a revenue-paying estate. Plaintiff obtained a putni in respect of this land from the proprietors owning a 13-annas, 15-gandas share. Defendant No. 1 also was a putnidar under the 1-anna, 5-ganda proprietors. The remaining 1 anna belonged to the other defendants, Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 claim a right to the land as usufructnary mortgagees from the old tenant and they further claim that they have been recognized by the proprietors other than those who are the lessors of the plaintiff and the defendant No 1. The Courts below have given a decree for partition overruling the objections raised by the defendants. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have appealed to this Court.2. It is contended that the subject-matter of the partition being a very small portion of an estate there ought not to have been a decree for par...
Esther Isaac Ezekiel Mordecai and anr. Vs. Morthu Mull and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.117
1. It has been clearly found by both the Courts below that the title-deeds were made over to Sewdutt Roy on the 25th February 1909 for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was sufficient security for the advances already made and a further advance to be made and which had been asked for by the 1st defendant, Mr. Mordecai. The learned Subordinate Judge in his judgment says that he cannot avoid the inference that the security offered was approved and accepted and then the advance was made on the 1st March, As to the memorandum (Exhibit IV) he says, 'it might be signed on the 1st March or two or three days after.' The learned Judge in appeal was satisfied that the title-deeds were made over for the purpose of inspection of the property on the 25th February, that a good mortgage was created by the deposit of the title-deeds and that the memorandum was purely a memorandum which did not need registration.2. The law on the subject has been laid down for years in this Court and it is clea...
Charu Chandra Majumdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.145
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case a Rule was issued by this Court on the 14th August 1916 calling upon the District Magistrate of Karwar (in the Presidency of Bombay, District North Canara) to show cause why the proceedings should not be transferred to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate in Calcutta and the alleged offence enquired into and tried in Calcutta, or why such other order should not be passed in the matter as to this Court may seem fit and proper on the grounds mentioned in the petition:2. With a direction that the Rule should be sent to the Registrar of the High Court in Bombay for favour of its transmission by him to the District Magistrate.3. The Rule was served with the assistance of the Registrar of the Bombay High Court upon the local Magistrate and the Rule came up for argument before Chaudhuri and Newbould, JJ., during the vacation.4. The questions at issue were (1) whether the learned Judges had jurisdiction under Section 185 of the Code of Criminal P...
Keramat Ali Patwari Vs. Nagendra (Nabendra in Vakalatnama) Kishore Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.78
This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Noakhali, dated the 4th June, 1.915, reversing the order of the Munsif of Lakhipur. The proceedings arise out of an application for execution of a decree. The decree was obtained as long ago as the 17th June 1910. It was an ex parte decree obtained against the present appellant and another person named Sangsar-ud-Din, his co-defendant. The decree-holder, respondent before us then applied for execution against Sangsar-ud-Din and brought to sale in execution the moveables of Sangsar-ud-Din on the 15th April 1913 and the whole decree was satisfied from the proceeds of such sale. On the 16th June 1913, Sangsar-ud-Din sued to set aside the ex parte decree and that suit was decreed on the 26th June 1914. On the same date on which that suit was decreed, the decree-holder applied for execution against the appellant, the other judgment-debtor, and the application having been refused by the Mnnsif, on appeal to the District Judge, ...
Susthir Bala Dutta Vs. Chandra Kumar Alias Akhoy Kumar Bhattacharjee a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.813
1. These appeals arise out of two suits one of which was for specific performance of a contract and the other for recovery of possession of the property in suit. The Court of first instance dismissed the first suit and decreed the other. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge remanded the cases for a trial de noro.2. It appears that the Court of first instance disallowed some evidence to prove the agreement upon which the suit for specific performance was based on the ground that the said agreement was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. That view is manifestly erroneous as the agreement did not require registration and as some evidence had been excluded the Court of Appeal below was justified in remanding the case. It is contended however, before us that an Appellate Court has not the power to remand a case for a retrial when the Court of first instance has not decided the suit upon a preliminary point. But under the Code of 1908, the powers of a Court of Appeal are mu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›