Kolkata Court February 1916 Judgments
Asad Ali Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Syed Mohamed HusaIn Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.83
1. An application was made on the 3rd January 1916 for the appointment of a common manager, on the allegation that the petitioner No. 1 who was a shareholder in certain properties had appointed Mr. H. C. F. Meyer as the manager of his share in the property, that the collection up to that time had been made jointly by joint Tahsildars, that Mr. Meyer dismissed certain Tahsildars for their oppression and misconduct and that certain other co-sharers with the help of these dismissed Tahsildars are preventing the Tahsildars appointed by Mr. Meyer from entering the joint Katchery house and thereby not only stopping all collections of rents by them but that their conduct was likely to lead to a serious breach of the peace. These statements were not supported by an affidavit, but by a petition which was verified by the petitioners, who stated that the statements in the petition were true to the best of their information and belief. There is no statement as to the source of their information or...
Tag this Judgment!Ahammad Ali and ors. Vs. Bisseswar Mukhoti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.211
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by a co-sharer landlord for rent and also for additional rent, under a kabuliat dated prior to the Bengal Tenancy Act. The co-sharer landlords were made parties and the prayer was to have rent, enhanced at the rate agreed upon in the kabuliat for the land as found by measurement under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. One of the pleas of the defendant was that the suit was not maintainable by the plaintiff alone by reason of the provisions of Section 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court gave effect to this plea and dismissed the suit. The Court of Appeal below, however, has upset the decree of the first Court and decreed the suit, holding that the suit was maintainable. The point raised in second appeal before us is whether the suit as framed is maintainable and the case has been argued threadbare by the learned Vakils who appeared for the parties and we are very much obliged to them for the light they have thrown upon the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Haldar and anr. Vs. Joggeswar Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.718
1. This second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, of the 24-Parganas dismissing the appeal from the learned Munsif's judgment in a suit for recovery of possession of a holding upon declaration of the plaintiff's right hereto. The appeal is on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant No. 2 being the transferee of an occupancy holding which was not transferable by custom and defendant No. 1 being the mortgagee from defendant No. 2. The holding belonged to defendant No. 4. On the 14th July 1896, defendant No. 4 sold the holding to defendant No. 2 without obtaining the consent of the landlord. The rent appears to have been always paid on behalf of the recorded tenant, who appears not to have been the defendant No. 4 but a lady whose connection with the other defendants is unknown. In June 1902 when the landlord, defendant No. 3, had obtained a decree for rent against defendant No. 4 whom he had recognised as tenant, the defendant No. 2 d...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Bhagat Vs. Raja LakshinaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.937
1. This appeal arises out of a suit originally instituted for the recovery of money alleged to be due upon two bonds. The suit was decreed so far as it related to one bond. The claim upon the other bond was dismissed The plaintiff appeals against the latter part of the decision.2. The facts may be stated shortly as follows--The estate of one Raja Baikunth Narain Singh was under management under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act 1876, from May 1888 till August 1907. Raja Baikunth Narain Singh was then alive and, during his life-time, in August 1899, his son Raja Radha Mohun Deb Singh executed of Rs. 7,500. After the estate had been restored and Government management had been withdrawn in the year 1907, the defendant in the present suit, who is the son of Raja Radha Mohun Singh, executed a bond which refers to the loan taken by Raja Radha Mohan Singh in 1899 and recites that 'a portion of that debt has been remitted and that the defendant promises to pay the remainder in instalment...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Lal Roy and ors. Vs. Kazi Syed Abdul Aziz and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.115
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 15,000 odd on a mortgage from defendant No. 1 by postponing an alleged mortgage executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, on the ground that the defendant No. 2, the original owner of the property, had, by surrendering the title-deeds into the hands of defendant No. 1 and suppressing the mortgage to himself and making it appear that the sale to defendant No. 1 was for a cash consideration of Rs. 32,000, afforded defendant No. 1 opportunity to raise money on the property by second mortgage as unencumbered.2. The defence was that the defendant No. 1 had not really borrowed Rs. 13,000 from the plaintiff and the plaintiff was fully aware of the circumstances under which defendant No. 1 purchased and mortgaged the property in suit. Search having been made in the Registration Office the plaintiff was saddled with notice of defendant No. 2's mortgage and the possession of defendant No. 2 was also notic...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rassoraj Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.133
1. The law imposes upon the applicant for review or re hearing the duty of putting in into Court the amount due from him under the decree at the time of his presenting the application, the other alternative being a discretion of the Court not to take the deposit but to allow an application to be made upon a proper security being given. In the present case an amount short by about 11 annas was put in by mistake. That, therefore, did not comply with the requirements of the section.2. It is contended that a substantial compliance with the provision of the Act should be sufficient. We are unable, however, to accede to this argument as the wording of the law is very specific.3. In this view, of the case the Rule is discharged with costs, hearing fee one gold mohur....
Tag this Judgment!Hon'ble Nawab Salimullah Bahadur, K.C.i.E., G.C.i.E., and Ors. Vs. Pro ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.129
1. These appeals arise out of suits for partition, and the Courts below have dismissed the suits upon a preliminary point, namely, that the plaintiffs had not acquired any such interest in the properties as to entitle them to maintain a suit for partition. It appears that one Madhusudan Das left four sons, Mohini Mohan Das, Radhika Mohan Das, Lal Mohan Das and Khettra Mohan Das. Khettra Mohan's interest devolved upon Mohini Mohan, Radhika Mohan's interest devolved upon his widow Gobinda Rani and Lal Mohan's interest was inherited by his widow Priya Moyee. Mohini Mohun Das obtained a loan of Rs. 2,50,000 from the Eastern Mortgage and Agency Company under a deed of mortgage dated the 27th September 1890. One of the conditions upon which and subject to which the said Company agreed to grant the said loan was that the mortgaged properties should be managed entirely and without any interference from the said mortgagor by Mr. Garth and Mr. Weatherall and Mohini Mohan executed a power-of-atto...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenath Haldar and ors. Vs. BepIn Behari Mal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.574
1. These were Rules calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge, reversing the decision of the Munsif setting aside a sale under the Bengal Tenancy Act, should not be set aside on the ground that the appeal was incompetent.2. Now the reason why the petitioner contends that the appeal is incompetent is that the grounds of the Munsif's decision or one of the grounds of the Munsif's decision was that the judgment-debtor had purchased the property himself benami through the auction-purchaser. But that does not necessarily bring the case within Section 173(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That section says, when the judgment-debtor purchases by himself or through another person a tenure or holding so sold, the Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the decree-holder or any other person interested in the sale by order set aside the sale. This is a summary procedure which the Rent Courts are allowed to take, if they see fit, where no other questi...
Tag this Judgment!Chaita Dassya Vs. Madan Chandra Das Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.33
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition brought by a Hindu widow against the sons and grandsons of her deceased husband's brother. There was a compromise decree between the parties in a previous suit and the plaintiff agreed by that compromise that as long as she lived she would hold and enjoy ejmali possession of certain properties mentioned in the decree jointly living with the defendants in the same mess as before and also that she would not be competent to make a gift or sell the properties or transfer the same.2. The learned District Judge has held that it was on the understanding that the plaintiff would not ask for partition in her life-time that the suit was compromised by the defendants. Now, an agreement between the members of a Hindu family not to come to a partition might be binding upon themselves. See Mayne's Hindu Law, 7th Edition, page 687; Krishnendra Nath v. Debendra Nath 12 C.W.N. 793. We agree with the District Judge in holding that by the compromise the p...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Deo Saran Lal and ors. Vs. Baleswar Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.1003
1. This is an appeal by the defendants first party in a suit brought by the plaintiff for confirmation of his possession in an occupancy-holding on declaration of his title there to.2. It appears that he purchased it from the original tenants by a deed, dated 11th September 1907. The defendants, first party, purchased it in 1911 in execution of their own money-decree against the same tenants. The District Judge has held that the plaintiff's purchase was a genuine purchase and he has also found that the plaintiff's possession from and since the date of his purchase has been proved.3. From the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy Chowdhury 27 Ind. Cas. 61; 20 C.L.J. 52. 42 C 172; 18 C.W.N. 971 (F.B.), it is clear that the voluntary transfer by the original raiyat made on the 11th September 1907 is operative against the raiyat and also operative against all person other than the landlord including obviously a subsequent purchaser from the same raiyat. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »