Kolkata Court May 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.
ReajuddIn Bepari Vs. Chand Baksha Haji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.28
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case I think the appeal should be allowed.2. It appears that the plaintiff purchased the raiyati interest in the land from Bakshi Prodhania and Falu, Sikdar. The under-raiyat interest became vested by a series of transactions in a man called Abdul Ali, and through Abdul Ali the, under-raiyati interest became vested in defendant No. 1 in respect of plot No. 3, which is the only plot regarding which this appeal is made.3. Now apparently Abdul Ali; purported to sell the raiyati interest, but it has been found by the Court below as a fact, which we must accept, that he had only the under-raiyati interest at the time of the sale. Therefore, as between him and the defendant No. 1, he was able to pass nothing more than the under-raiyati interest. The defendant No. 1 went into possession in the year 1893 in consequence of this purchase from Abdul Ali. Therefore, it must be taken for the purpose of this appeal that he entered upon the land in the capacity of a...
Jadab Sardar and ors. Vs. Gobinda Chandra Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.912
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case I think that the appeal should be dismissed inspite of the argument which Dr. Dwarka Nath Mitter has addressed to us. The plaintiffs obtained a settlement of the land from the admitted landlord in April 1911. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are appealing to this Court obtained their title to the interest, which they now have, under defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4 was a person who had the original right of occupancy and he sublet it to defendants Nos. 1 and 2; the plaintiffs are third persons; no objection can be taken to the proceeding by defendant No. 4 in subletting which created an interest in defendants Nos. 1 and 2-the interest of an under-raiyat. Then defendant No. 4 sold his right as occupancy raiyat to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It turns out that the occupancy right was that of a non-transferable occupancy holding which the defendant No. 4 had no power to assign to defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and Dr. DwarkaNath Mitter does not claim on behalf of ...
Bangshi Badan Biswas and anr. Vs. Kamala Kanta Porohit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1916
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.477
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In my judgment this appeal must be dismissed. The question is whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by the provisions of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act. The learned Munsif seems to have thought that this was an attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to get over the provisions of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act and he thought that the plaintiffs did not succeed in so doing. Now, Section 78 provides that: 'No person shall be bound to pay rent to any person claiming such rent as proprietor or manager of an estate or revenue-free property in respect of which he is required by this Act to cause his name to be registered, or as mortgagee, unless the name of such claimant shall have been registered under this Act.' It appears that a previous suit was brought by the plaintiffs in which they alleged that they were owners of the property, basing their claim upon adverse possession; and, as I understand, they were then met by the provisions of Section 7...
Aswini Kumar Aich Vs. Sarada Charan Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.253
1. In a Record of Rights under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the plaintiff was recorded as the owner of 2/3rds of a howla and the defendant of the remaining 1/3rd. The plaintiff brought a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for a decision that the entry was not correct, That case was heard and remained pending for delivery of judgment. In this state of things, the plaintiff made an application to withdraw from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The order on the application was: 'The plaintiff is allowed to withdraw.' No order was made that he was permitted to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action.2. The plaintiff then brought this suit in the Civil Court and his prayers are, first, that his title to the 5 of the howla recorded in the name of the defendant be established; secondly, that his title by adverse possession to the same be established; thirdly, for recovery of possession of the same, if necessary; end fourthly,...
Kangali Molla Vs. Beni Madhab Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.534
1. The plaintiff purchased a piece of land in 1898 by Exhibit L, and his vendor described the land sold as bounded on the west by the land of Jagat Biswas, the predecessor of the defendants. In 1902 the plaintiff purchased the jote of Ramdhupi in execution of a rent-decree. The plaintiff says the land appertains to Ramdhupi's jote and is within his purchase, the defendant says it is his land in another jote. The Record of Rights being in favour of the defendants, the plaintiff had to rebut the presumption in favour of the record. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had succeeded in rebutting the presumption. But the lower Appellate Court says the plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption. This is obviously a question of fact and would ordinarily be final. It is contended, however, that in arriving at this finding the lower Appellate Court has made use of evidence which is not relevant and otherwise erred in applying the law of evidence, and we cannot say how far or how much the...
Rayan Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.968
ORDER1. In a proceeding under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners were directed on the 1st December 1915 to execute bonds for Rs. 200 with two sureties each, to be of good behaviour for one year in some cases, and for three years in other cases--in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the respective periods. This order was made by Mr. H.K. Mallik, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bankura. On the 24th and 26th January 1916, the petitioners produced two sureties each, who offered to stand as sureties and filed documents of title relating to their properties. On the 28th January the Magistrate recorded the following order: 'To Police for enquiry, if the surety is fit; forward documents also.' As the Police did not submit the report on the day fixed the case was adjourned. The Sub-Inspecter of Police subsequently reported in the following terms: 'The proposed sureties are not fit. They have no sufficient central over the accused and they have no sufficient property to p...
Dwarkanath Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Tafazar Rahaman Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.64
John Woodroffe, J.1. The District Judge allowed the plaintiff's claim. On appeal to this Court Mr. Justice Newbould held that the suit was barred by limitation under the provisions of Clause 1(a), Schedule III, of the Bengal Tenancy Act It has been found as a fact that the defendants were not in possession of the land before they enter it under their lease for five years and that the land in suit is khas khamar land of the plaintiffs. We must accept this finding and dispose of this appeal accordingly.2. The question then is, do the defendants come within the term 'non-occupancy raiyat' as mentioned in the Schedule. It is admitted that if the defendants are non-occupancy raiyats, then the suit is barred. If this portion of the Schedule does not apply then the general law of limitation does and the suit is not barred. The contention that has been urged before us may be summarised thus:3. For the respondents it is contended that by the term 'non-occupancy raiyat' in the Schedule is meant ...
Sarat Chundra Dutta Vs. Jadab Chundra Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.956
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case I think this appeal should be dismissed. It is clear that on the merits the defendant has no case whatever. The learned Munsif in the Court below found that the story which the defendant set up was a shamelessly false one. Now the defendant tries to defend this action on a technicality based upon Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. In my judgment his defence is without foundation. That Section deals with certain classes of tenancy which are therein mentioned, namely, a tenancy from year to year, pc for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, and which can be made only by a registered instrument, It has not been shown in this case that the tenancy in question which must now admittedly be taken to exist was one of those mentioned in the Section. On the other hand, the facts are as set out by the learned Munsif in his judgment. He said: The defendant entered into the land as a tenant of the plaintiff, paid rent for it for a ...
Promotha Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Kishore Lal Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1916
Reported in: 38Ind.Cas.547
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In my judgment this appeal should be dismissed.2. I intend to say very little about the facts of the case, because they are dealt, with fully by the learned Subordinate Judge. It seems to me that the learned Subordinate Judge has found two facts either of which is sufficient to defeat the appellants' case- He has found that 'the jote right existed prior to the acquisition of the putni and kayemi jote, but within about the last quarter of a century the malih defendants ignored such right and exercised only their more important tenure right.... On consideration of the above facts it seems to be probable that the malik defendants' predecessor allowed the minor jote right to merge in the larger right and, therefore, everything passed to the plaintiffs.' When one comes to consider that the putni right was acquired at least some fifty years before the institution of the suit, I cannot help thinking that the learned Subordinate' Judge was right in coming to the conc...
NabIn Chandra Ghose Vs. Nilkamal Mukhopadhyaya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.11
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the suit was brought by the plaintiff asking for a declaration of his mourusi mokarrari right to certain lands and of his title acquired thereto by adverse possession for upwards of twelve years and for declarations that defendant No. 2 and Bhutni Molla never held the land in suit or paid any rent for the same, that the plaintiff and not defendants Nos. 2 to 8 was in actual possession of the land and the land consisted not of two plots but of only one plot bearing a rental Rs. 3-1-10 gandas and that the rent decrees obtained by defendant No. 1 against defendant No. 2 and Bhutni Molla were collusive and fraudulent and the plaintiff was not bound by those decrees and the land in suit was not liable to be sold in execution thereof.2. It appears that the land in question was the property originally of one Karnadhar Mandal who created a tenancy in Kasim Molla; that was a non-transferable occupancy tenancy. In November 1895, a decree having been obtain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »