Kolkata Court June 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.
Emperor Vs. Nanda Gopal Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.988
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case in my judgment the Rule should not be made absolute.2. I think this is a case of considerable importance, although it is not likely that many similar cases will arise in the future. We have already expressed our judgment that this Court would have jurisdiction to make the Rule absolute, if we thought right in our discretion to make it absolute. We have given our reasons for that judgment. But under the circumstances of this case, in my judgment, it will not be right in the exercise of our discretion to make the Rule absolute, and the reasons for that conclusion may be shortly stated as follows: I do not think that Mr. Chuckerbutty put it much too high, when he summarized the position by saying that in directing this evidence of Mr. N.G. Roy to be taken in this case, the Court was to a certain extent impliedly informing him that he would not be prosecuted in respect of the charge any further. It must be remembered that the object of the remand was...
Rai Nalinakhya Basu Badadur and Anr. Vs. Hon'ble Maharajadhiraj, Sir B ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.395
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 25th February 1914, modifying the decision of the Subordinate Judge of that place. The suit was brought for possession of certain resumed chowkidari chakran lands by the putnidars against the landlord and the persons with whom he had settled the lands after resumption. Various defences were raised in the suit, but we are not concerned with them in the present appeal. The putnidars held under a document in writing, one portion of which, namely the kabuliat, is before the Court. Both the lower Courts have found that the resumed lands were, in fact, included in the putni lease which was granted to the plaintiffs. Under Section 51 of Act VI (B.C.) of 1870, on an order for resumption being made, 'such order shall operate to transfer to such zemindar the land therein mentioned subject to the amount of assessment therein mentioned and subject to all contracts theretofore made in respect of, under or by ...
Rajendra Lal Sur Vs. Atal Bihari Sur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.969
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made under Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner was a defendant in a suit for partition of joint property, and contested the claim, on the ground, amongst others, that the plaint was insufficiently stamped. An issue was raised upon this preliminary point, and after various interlocutory orders, which need not be set out in detail for our present purpose, the Court decided on the 6th January 1916 to determine the question of Court-fees thus raised. On the day following, witnesses were examined, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. Six days' later, we find the following entry in the order-sheet: 'Plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw and bring a new suit. In the special circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.' What had happend was that on the 12th January, the plaintiffs presented an application to the Subordinate Judge under Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure....
BepIn Krishna Kumar and ors. Vs. Hari Das Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.562
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 17th December 1913, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Howrah. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs', the tenants, against the defendants, the landlords, for a declaration that the entry in the Record of Rights was wrong and that they were permanent tenants at a fixed rate and not settled raiyats as entered in the record. The Record of Rights in this case was finally published on the 29th October 1907; that is, after the date on which Act I (B. C.) of 1907 came into force, : which amended the Bengal Tenancy Act by adding a new section (Section 105 A). On the 29th November 1907 an application was made by the' landlords, the defendants, under the provisions of Section 105 for settlement of a fair rent. On the 28th February 1908 an order was passed settling a fair rent under which the rent of the tenants was somewhat enhanced. Then the tenants brought the pr...
Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad Vs. Ahmad HussaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.695
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for a twofold declaration, viz., first, that proceedings under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, commenced at his instance, were fraudulent, ultra vires and void; and secondly, that, if the proceedings were not vitiated by fraud, the plaintiffs were maurasi mokarari raiyats in respect of the disputed lands (and not tenure-holders as entered in the Record of Rights) , that the lands formed distinct raiyati tenancies (and not one tenure) and that the defendant-landlord was not entitled to realise Rs. 84, which has been assessed by the Settlement Officer as fair rent under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The suit was defended on the ground, amongst others, that it was barred under Section 109. The Court of first instance gave effect to this contention and dismissed the suit. Upon appeal the District Judge has reversed that decision and has remanded the suit for trial on the merits. The present appeal is directed against this ...
Fulsummannessa Bibee Vs. Halamaddi Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1916
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.426
1. We are of opinion that this appeal is barred under Sub-section 2 of Section 104, Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant was the decree-holder in the Court below, and at his instance the property of the judgment-debtors was sold in execution on the 17th July 1912. On the 25th April 1914, the judgment-debtors applied to have the sale set aside, on the ground that it was vitiated by material irregularity and fraud in publication. But they also alleged fraud of a more comprehensive character, viz., that, the decree-holder had taken out execution, though his decree had been satisfied in full out of Court. The Trial Court dismissed the application. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the allegation that the decree had been satisfied in full was not established. He name to the conclusion, however, that the sale proclamation had been fraudulently suppressed, and that the property had been purchased by the decree-holder at a price much lower than its proper value. On these findings, th...
Satis Chandra Bose Vs. Takurdas Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.886
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff landlord in a suit instituted by him for enhancement of rent on the ground of a rise in the price of staple food crops. The defendants pleaded that their rent was fixed in perpetuity and was not liable to be enhanced. This they sought to establish by proof that they had paid rent at a uniform rate for upwards of twenty years. The Trial Court found that this allegation was not established and made a decree for enhancement of rent. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge has, by judgment which we are constrained to characterise as extraordinary, set aside this decision and remanded the suit for re-trial. He has come to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by a defendant to prove payment of rent at a uniform rate for upwards of twenty years prior to the institution of the suit is not satisfactory and sufficient; yet he holds that 'it will be conducive to the interest of both the parties if the case is remanded to the Court of first instance for trial de ...
Nandarani Dasi Vs. Hari Charan Gangopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.29
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Howrah, dated the 21st May 1915. The suit was brought by the plaintiff Nandarani Dasi, who is the widow of the deceased Rai Bahadur Kirode Prosad Pal, against two classes of defendants; first of all, against certain persons who were formerly the executors of her husband's Will and, secondly, against certain persons who had been constituted as trustees to a certain charity established by the late Rai Bahadur under a scheme settled by the District Judge under a compromise entered into between the persons who were the executors and the then guardian of the present plaintiff, she being at that time a minor. The causes or action ire, first, an account against the late executors for moneys come to their hands as executors or trustees. That part of the suit has not been tried and nobody has suggested ;hat that is not a perfectly good cause of action. The plaintiff also says that the scheme relating to the c...
Srimati Shyama Sundari Ghose and ors. Vs. Aswini Kumar Chakravarti and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.91
1. In a previous partition suit between the parties, the preliminary decree was prepared by consent. A Civil Court amin made the final partition according to the preliminary decree and there was an appeal against the final decree by some of the appellants, if not all. In that appeal, none of the grounds that are urged in this case, were raised and the final decree was confirmed on appeal.2. The plaintiffs now bring this suit on the ground that the local investigation by the amin was superintended by defendant No. 1 that they left the whole matter to the superintendence of defendant No. 1 as he was acquainted with the property and as they had confidence in him but that the defendant No. 1 in collusion with the amin had made a wrong partition by excluding portions of the property under partition and including in the partition, lands that belonged to other properties. On these grounds, they sue for a declaration that the final decree in the partition suit was null and void.3. The first Co...
Bamandas Bhattacharyya and ors. Vs. Nilmadhab Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.754
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent under a lease, and of damages for breach of a covenant contained therein. On the 27th August 1896, the plaintiffs granted the lease to the defendants-in respect of an area of 942 bighas, the interest of the grantors was described as that of tenure-holders and the grantees who paid a premium of Rs. 1,280 were made under-tenure-holders by the instrument. The rent was fixed in perpetuity at Rs. 688 4-0, the tenants undertook to pay Rs. 538-4 0 direct to the superior landlord of their grantors and the balance, Rs. 150, to the lessors themselves. The lease contained a covenant that if by reason of non-payment of the rent due to the supsrior landlords, year after year, instalment by instalment, a suit is brought against the lessors and if in execution of the rent-decree the tenure or other property of the lessors is attached and sold' in auction, the lessees will be bound to pay the rent due with interest, costs ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »