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.
NasiruddIn Sircar Vs. GofuruddIn Mohamed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.481
1. In this case a petition was presented for proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, by the first party on 8th September 1915. On 15th September 1915, the same Magistrate passed orders against both the parties in this case under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, binding them down to keep the peace for one year. It should be stated that the parties are relations and co-sharers and are now apparently at logger heads. In spite of the order under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, the Section 145 proceedings continued. Both the parties filed their written statements. One we have before us of 29th September 1915. That was the petition of the 2nd party, one of whom is the petitioner before us. In that the second party did not plead any want of jurisdiction in the Magistrate by reason of the order under Section 107. On the contrary they pleaded that they had done nothing which was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The proceedings continued before the Magistrate, ...
Taran Krishna Bhowmik Vs. Munshi SamiruddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.51
1. One Chuni Bibi, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, executed a zarpeshgi lease in favour of the defendant No. 1 on the 11th Agrahyan 1301 B.S. on receipt of Rs. 500 at an interest of Rs. 1-4-0 per month for a term of 9 years. By the terms of the lease the defendant No. 1 was to pay the rent payable to the superior landlord for the property and to apply the balance of the rent, which was fixed at Rs. 221, in liquidation of the mortgage-debt. On the expiry of the period of the lease there was to be a mutual adjustment of accounts and it was agreed that the mortgagor would pay any amount which might be due to the mortgagee and that the property would remain liable for such amount after the expiry of the lease. The lessee failed to pay the rent to the superior landlord, the latter obtained a decree for rent against the mortgagor and in execution of that decree the property was sold on the 23rd November 1904. The ejara expired on the 13th April 1905, and on the 11th April 1908...
Madhu Mati Debi Vs. Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.502
1. In this case it appears that in the year 1677, in execution of a money-decree against the owner or recorded tenant of a certain holding, a half share therein was purchased by the plaintiff's mother. The mother's interest has since passed to the plaintiff. It then appears that in 1909 the defendant, landlord sued his registered tenant one Bhubaneswari for rent and in execution of his decree sold the tenure or Bhubaneswari's interest therein. At the sale which was held on the 12th January 1910, the landlord himself became the purchaser. The plaintiff then brought the present suit in order to have this sale set aside or an order at least to have it declared that the sale in no way affected his interest in the tenure or holding.2. It was found by both the Courts below that the tenure or holding was a permanent tenure, that the land had been let out for homestead purposes and that in fact there were existing thereon very substantial pucca structures and that it was, therefore, transferab...
Atul Hazra and ors. Vs. Uma Charan Changdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.822
1. In this case, the five petitioners, who are the second party to the proceedings, obtained a decree against Bhusan Changdar one of the first party) and Nando Changdar, who are entitled to an undivided one-fourth share in a property. This one fourth share was brought to sale in execution and was purchased by the decree-holders. They obtained delivery of possession through the Court. The present proceedings were taken between the first party, of whom Bhusan Changdar, one of the judgment-debtors, was one, and the second party who were the decree-holders. The learned Magistrate has found that, though the second party are undoubtedly entitled by virtue of their purchase to an undivided one-fourth share, they were never in actual possession of the property and that the crop was grown entirely by the first party. He has accordingly declared in favour of the possession of the first party and directed the second party to go to the Civil Court.2. We do not think that the order in this particul...
Aghore Nath Mukhopadhya Vs. Abhoy Charan Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.85
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit brought for enhancement of rent on the ground that the rent paid was below the prevailing rate within the meaning of Section 30(a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that in the village in question there are in fact seven different rates of rent paid by seven different tenants, the rates varying from Rs. 2-5-5 to Rs. 7-9-5 per bigha. In this state of facts he has held, and in our opinion rightly held, that there is no one prevailing rate up to which enhancement can be allowed. Section 31A of the Bengal Tenancy Act not having been extended to the District in question, obviously he was right in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for enhancement. The case of Alep Khan v. Raghu Nath Prosad Tewari 10. W.N. 310 has been cited before us, and we have been asked to hold on the authority of that case that the lowest rate found payable in this village should be taken as the prevailing rate. But in the case cited the fa...
Natabar Sarkar Vs. Natabar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.112
John Woodroffe, J.1. The plaint does not seek for any declaration against the prior mortgagees but asks payment by the mortgagors, and in default sale of the mortgaged property. The 10th paragraph of the plaint, however, does state the plaintiff's intention to displace the alleged prior title of the previous mortgagees to the lands mortgaged to the plaintiff. This question was argued in both the lower Courts, Both those Courts have dealt with the question adversely to the appellant before us, and I think quite rightly. We are not here concerned with the rights, whatever they may be, of the plaintiff as a landlord, that is not the capacity in which he appears in this suit. Here he sues as a mortgagee and he would not be in such a position to sue unless, of course, he had taken a mortgage from his own tenants. There can be no question but that the mortgagor could not have been heard to say that the property which he had mortgaged was non-transferable and that though he purported to effec...
Jogendra Nath Datta Chowdhury Vs. Haridas Chong and ors.,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.778
Newbould, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits brought under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act for the registration of certain kabulyats. The plaintiff was granted a decree by the Munsif, who found that the documents in question had been executed by the principal defendants. In hearing the appeals the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have misunderstood the scope of suits under Section 77. As was pointed out in the case of Broucke W.W. v. Rajah Shaheb Mohan Bikram Shaha 5 Ind. Cas. 20 : 14 C.W.N. 12 The authorities are clear upon the question as to what may be put in issue in suit under this section. The enquiry before the Registrar under Section 74 and the subsequent enquiry in Court are to be directed to two points only: (a) whether the document has been executed and (b) whether certain requirements of the law for the time being have been complied with by the applicant or person presenting the document for registration'. The Court is not concerned with the validity of the...
Emperor Vs. Sreenath Mahapatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.983
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the three prisoners (Sreenath Mabapatra, Anil Prokash Shome and Sunil Prokash Shome) were charged with criminal conspiracy to commit the offences of forgery for the purpose of cheating, fraudulently and dishonestly using as genuine a forged document and cheating, and certain other offences, which it is not necessary to specify in detail.2. During the cross-examination of certain of the witnesses for the prosecution, the learned Counsel appearing for one of the prisoners put to the witnesses certain letters as having been written by them or their employers.3. The witnesses identified the letters which were then tendered as evidence and admitted.4. At the end of the case for the prosecution, the learned Counsel for all the three prisoners declared that they did not mean to call witnesses or adduce evidence.5. The learned Counsel for the prosecution thereupon claimed the right to reply under Section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, all...
Meyajan Buian Vs. Srimati Joymala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.32
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for rent brought by the plaintiffs, the respondents before us, against the defendant, who is the appellant. The plaintiffs are the holders of lands in a Government khas mehal in which the land in suit is included. Upon the judgment of the Court below: it appears that by an express contract between the parties the defendant held this land at an annual rental of Rs. 81-6-0, on condition that the landlord would be entitled to enhance the rent should it be found on measurement that the area occupied by the defendant was more than what was stated in the contract.2. It appears further that a Record of Rights . was prepared in respect of this khas mehal under Chapter X of the Bengal, Tenancy Act, The Record of Rights was finally published in the year 1910, The area of the holding as therein entered is larger than the area stated in the contract but the amount of rent entered is the same as the rent Stated in the contract. There is no mention of the c...
Dwarika Nath Dey Chowdhury Vs. Sailaja Kanta Mallick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1916
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.376
Herbert Holmwood, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Munsif, Additional Court of Ranaghat, with regard to certain questions arising upon an execution which has been stayed by the District Judge of Nadia on the judgment-debtor furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the lower Court, and we are asked to decide what duty is payable op such bonds.2. It is suggested by the learned Munsif that no duty is payable under the Stamp Act and that the Court fee of 8 annas is sufficient. But it is obvious that these bonds inuring to the benefit of the Secretary of State or of the parties in the case must be stamped in accordance with the Stamp Act. They are not made by order of the Court within the meaning of Schedule II, Article 6 of the Court Fees Act, and that Act does not appear to apply. They are bonds taken on an order for stay of execution and the parties can furnish them or not as they please. If they do furnish them the stay of execution becomes a matter of indulgenc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »