Kolkata Court March 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.
Mansaram Das and anr. Vs. Ahamad HosaIn Pradhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.380
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond executed by defendant No. 2 on behalf of her son Monasharam Das defendant No. 1, who at the date of the mortgage was a minor. The mortgage was executed in favour of one Rahamatulla Prodhan, whose heirs the plaintiffs are. It is not denied that defendant No. 2 had executed the mortgage. But the defence was that, no consideration was actually paid for the bond. It appears that defendant No. 2 was the certificated guardian of defendant No. 1 under Act VIII of 1890. She applied to the District Judge for permission to raise a loan of Rs. 2,000 on mortgage from one Hossain patwari at an interest of Rs. 1.40 per cent. per month. The permission was granted; but Hossain subsequently being unable to advance the loan, the defendant Nov 2; again applied to the Judge for permission to raise the loan from Rahamatulla the father of the plaintiffs. This application was granted by the District Judge. Subsequently, it appears that the District Judge...
Bhusan Chandra Ghosh and ors. Vs. Srakanta Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.957
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Burdwan, in which he gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 whom I may call the Ghose defendants have appealed.2. Now, it appears that in 1886 the Mookerjees who held under one Amir Ali entered into an agreement with an individual whom I shall call Pal, by which a subordinate tenure was created, and it appears that this tenure was of the character of a permanent under-tenure. It was in respect of sixty bighas, but apparently prior to 1889 a man called Gobardhan had got into occupation of 2 1/2 bighas, part of the sixty bighas, and he was paying rent to the first and second defendants, the Ghoses, and in 1889 Pal brought an action against Gobardhan and the first two defendants, the Ghoses, for the purpose of recovering possession of the 21/2 bighas. He failed in that action and from that time Gobardhan or some other occupant has been in possession of the 2 1/2 bighas, and G...
Rani Debendrabala Dasi, Executrix to This Estate of Late Kumar Srish C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.593
Newbould, J.1. In these six suits the plaintiffs claimed to recover, possession of lands which were formerly chowkidari chakran lands of the village but had been resumed by Government. The plaintiffs are the dar-patnidars having all the rights that were leased to the patnidars. The defendants are the zemindars and the tenants in occupation of the lands.2. At the hearing of these appeals, three points only have been argued, having reference to the rights of the dar-patnidars to these lands under their leases, the question of limitation and the right to eject the tenant-defendants. The first point turns on the construction of the patni lease, Exhibit VII. It is conceded that it cannot be argued that chakran lands were excluded by the general terms in which the lands of the mauza were described. Reliance is placed on the following special clause: 'That if any land or jama be excluded from this patni taluk under any law or order of Court you shall not be competent to raise any objection to...
Sheikh Aklu Vs. Sheikh Emaman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.899
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case I think the appeal must be dismissed. The lease was given on the 18th of January 1904 to the defendant's brother, one Sheikh Chandu, of a particular area of land which was 2 cottahs, and the rent was Rs. 12 a year. In 1909 Chandu died. From that time the defendant and the heirs of Chandu, and I think all his heirs, lived on the land in question; but apparently after the death of Chandu the land occupied by the defendant and the heirs, who according to the judgment of' the lower Appellate Court were probably living with the defendant, was 21 cottahs and the rent that was paid was not Rs. 12 a year but was Rs. 15 a year, and the first question raised is whether the tenancy was a heritable one.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the tenancy was not a heritable one, and he bases his judgment upon the terms of the lease. That has been examined by my learned brother Mr. Justice Mookerjee and he agrees that there is nothing in the lease to sh...
Tirthabasi Sing Roy and anr. Vs. BepIn Krishna Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.30
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. We are of opinion that this appeal should succeed and we think that the right order will be to direct that another local inquiry should be held, and the short grounds for that opinion are these, that this case involved an inquiry into mattes which in the ordinary course ought to be inquired into on the spot and the Munsif who directed the inquiry in the first instance, in my opinion, took the right course. The report of the gentleman who was appointed to make the inquiry was acted upon by the Court of first instance, but when it came to the Subordinate Judge he came to the conclusion that the report of the Commissioner was an unsatisfactory one and could not be relied upon, and the learned gentleman who has argued this appeal has admitted that that report cannot be supported. Therefore, it seems to me that the right procedure was adopted in the first instance, namely, a local inquiry was directed, bat unfortunately, the report of the gentleman who held the in...
Bhaggabhor Mondal and ors. Vs. Mohini Mohan Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.994
1. In this case it appears that in Chait 1308 corresponding to year 1901 a mortgage-bond was executed by the appellant before us in favour of two mortgagees. Both the mortgagees, it has been found, were minors at the time. They sued upon this mortgage-bond, obtained a decree and in the sale in execution of that decree they bought the property. The mortgagor now sues to have it declared that the mortgage-bond is void and to have the decree and the sale set aside.2. The only contention advanced on his behalf in this appeal is that, though he has taken the money of the minors, the mortgage-bond is void and cannot be enforced at their instance. In support, of that proposition the learned Pleader who has appeared for the appellant has cited before us the cases reported as Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuri 13 Ind. Cas. 331 : 39 C. 232 : 21 M.L.J. 1156 : 39 1. A. 1 : 16 C.W.N. 74 : (1912) M.W.N. 22 : 9 A.L.J. 33 : 15 C.L.J. 69 : 14 Bom. L.R. 5, Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose 30 C...
Satish Chundra Sinha Vs. Ananda Gopal Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.253
1. This appeal arises out of a dispute about the apportionment of a sum of Rs. 1,242-15-2 awarded as compensation for land taken under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894. The first party, who is the appellant before us, claims that he had a lakhiraj title to the land acquired. The second party claim as patnidars and darpatnidars. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award in favour of the lakhirajdar and paid him the compensation. Then as the patnidars did not admit the title of the lakhirajdar, he referred the case to the Civil Court under Section 103 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the reference held that the first party had no lakhiraj right to the land and that the maliks, viz., the patnidars and darpatnidars were entitled to get the compensation that had been awarded. He directed that the maliks should get the above compensation from the Government and that the Government would be at liberty to realise from the first party the sum which had...
Sheikh Fazil Vs. Hari Kishore Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.620
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment.2. The plaintiff brought a suit alleging that he was a raiyat and that the defendant was an under--raiyat upon whom he had served a notice under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defence was that the defendant was an occupancy raiyat, that even if in fact he was an under-raiayt, he had by custom acquired a right of occupancy and that the notice was not valid or sufficient.3. Before the present suit, there had been another suit by the same plaintiff against the same defendant for the same relief. In that suit, the learned Munsif found that no notice had been served. Issue No. 3 in that suit was, 'Have the plaintiffs occupancy right to the land in suit and is the defendant an under-raiyat under the plaintiffs,' and issue No. 4 was, 'Has the defendant any right of occupancy to the lands in dispute and is he liable to be ejected? 'With regard to these issues, the learned Munsif said, In view of my above findings, it is not necessary...
Emperor Vs. Donaldson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.155
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. I think this case is different, as regards the facts, from the cases which have been drawn to my attention. This is a case where the committal of the accused person, Mrs. Drummond, was by the Committing Magistrate sitting at Barrack-pore within the District of Alipore and the case was committed to the Sessions of the High Court. The case was tried by me sitting at the Sessions, and the accused on Friday last was acquitted. During the course of the trial one of the witnesses, Mr. Donaldson, went back on the statements which he had made before the Committing Magistrate and which were of a material character. When he was examined by the learned Standing Counsel, he admitted that several of the statements which he had made on oath to the Committing Magistrate were false to his knowledge. This matter was mentioned to me at the conclusion of the case, and was adjourned until this morning.2. An application is now made before me on behalf of the Crown for sanction un...
Madan Mohan De Sarkar and ors. Vs. Rebati Mohan Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.953
Woodroffe, J.1. The facts of this case, so far as they are relevant to the findings in the judgment, are these The plaintiffs attached the disputed property before judgment on November 6th, 1895, purchased it at an execution sale on August 19th, 1897, and obtained symbolical possession on August 20th, 1898. But on the 25th May 1897, before the execution sale, the defendants had purchased the disputed property by a kobala executed by the Court in pursuance of a contract dated before the attachment. This contract was evidenced by the bayna patra, referred to in the judgment, dated the 19th August 1895. It was followed by a suit for specific. performance, the decree in which was passed on the 30th January 1897. The kobala, which was executed by the Court in the suit for specific performance, was executed in pursuance of the aforesaid contract dated before the attachment. The defendants obtained possession before the execution sale at which the plaintiffs purchased.2. A number of questions...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »