Kolkata Court November 1917 Judgments

BepIn Behary Chakrabutty and ors. Vs. Sib Charan Chakrabarty

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.801

1. This is an appeal against an order of remand made by the Subordinate Judge of Jessore. The suit, it appears, was one brought under the provisions of Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the notice served under that section was defective. The defect alleged was that the notice did not require the tenant to remedy the misuse complained of. The decision of the Munsif proceeded on the ground that in the notice itself there was an admission that the misuse was in fact capable of remedy. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that in fact in the notice there was no such admission and that the plaintiff in giving his notice proceeded on the view that the misuse was in fact incapable of remedy. We agree with the learned Subordinate Judge in the view he has taken of the' notice, and that being so, it is clear that the notice was sufficient, and that the Subordinate Judge's order in remanding the case for trial on the mer...

Bhushan Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. the Chairman of the Kotechandpur Mu ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.298

1. The petitioners were convicted under Section 218 of the Bengal Municipal Act of the offence of failing to comply with a notice issued to them under Section 204 of the Act. Section 204, in so far as it is relevant, runs as follows: The Commissioners may give notice in writing to the owner or occupier of any house requiring him to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction erected or placed against or in front of such house...if the same overhangs the road, or juts into, or in any way projects or encroaches upon or is an obstruction to the safe and convenient passage along any road.' Now the road in question runs from north to south. On the west of the road the petitioners have a house and to the north of the house there is a piece of land adjoining it, which is variously described as patit land or as an orchard. There is evidence that the land on which the house stands was acquired at some date prior to the date on which the adjoining piece of land was acquired. The ...

Jagat Durlav Mazumdar Vs. Indu Bhusan Mazumdar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.58

1. No one appears in opposition to this appeal. The appeal is directed against an order of the District Judge of Nadia, namely, the order of the 9th June modified by the order of the 13th June. By the order of the 9th as thus modified, the petitioner who is the executor and has obtained Probate of the Will of his wife has been required to submit an account annually and he has also been required to give a bond with one surety in an amount representing the full value of the moveables dealt with by the Will and three years' income of the immoveable properties disposed of thereby. By the Will the moveable properties are divided between three persons of whom the executor the husband is one, and the immoveable properties are dedicated to an idol of whom the executor is appointed the shebait. Having regard to these provisions of the Will we think that the amount of security required is somewhat excessive and we, therefore, fix it in the sum of five thousand rupees. As to the number of suretie...

Manhari Chowdhury Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.614

1. This Rule was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why certain proceedings taken against the petitioner under Section 54A of the Calcutta Police Act should not be quashed. The petitioner is a dealer in jute carrying on business at 115, Beniatola Street, Calcutta. It appears that he was found in possession of certain bales and half bales of jute. With reference to that jute he was placed on his trial before a Presidency Magistrate on charges framed in the alternative under Sections 380 and 411, Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the learned Magistrate in the alternative on those charges. He then moved this Court, which set aside the conviction and directed that the jute which was the subject-matter of the charge should be returned to him. Apparently he was removing this jute in five carts from the thana where it had been stored when he was again arrested, the jute being again seined, in order that the present proceedings might be taken against him under Section...

Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabel Deb Vs. Sridam Mahata and Durga Prasa ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.26

1. In this case the plaintiff Sridam Mahata sued to recover possession of 137 bighas odd in Mouza Dakhina, on the ground that he had a mourasi mokurari jote mondali right under the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff pleaded dispossession on 29th July 1898 and he filed his suit on 22nd June 1910, just within 12 years. The point of limitation was taken both in Courts below and in this Court but has not been seriously pressed before us, as it appears that the suit of the plaintiff which was first filed in the 4th Munsif's Court was presented by him in that Court with due diligence and was only returned to be presented before the higher Court when it was found that the value of the land exceeded the amount of the Munsif's jurisdiction. The point of law relied upon by the defendant No. 1, who is the appellant in this Court, is that the title of the plaintiff was extinguished by the sale by the landlord, defendant No. 1, in pursuance of the decree in the suit of 1894 which the predecessor of the...

Bijoy Kumar Addya Vs. Rama Nath Barman

Court: Kolkata

1. In this case it appears that the petitioners on the one side and the opposite party on the other held two money decrees against certain judgment-debtors of whom four are common to the two decrees. Both parties applied each for the execution of their own decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the 24 Pergannahs. On the application of the opposite party in execution of his decree certain properties were put up to sale and were in fact sold by the officer of the Court on the 19th of September 1916. In an application presented on the 18th 'September the opposite party applied that he should be permitted to bid at the sale to be held on the 19th and also applied that the amount of his bid, if accepted, should be set off against the money due under his decree. There is no express order on this application intimating that he would be permitted thus to set off the purchase-money against the amount due under the decree; but there is an order to the effect that to the extent of 19th f...

Jiban Krishna Chakravarti Vs. Ramesh Chandra Das and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.225

Charles Chitty, J.1. In my opinion this appeal should fail on the short ground that the contract on which the plaintiff sued was embodied in the solenamah filed on 14th July 1910, and that that solenamah having been set aside by this Court there was no contract subsisting which the plaintiff could put before the Court. The learned. Counsel for the plaintiff appellant conceded that if the Court held that the solenamah was the contract between the parties he had no case. The plaintiff in seeking specific performance of an agreement to lease as against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 alleged in his plaint that there was an agreement with the plaintiff that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 8 would grant a patta to him in his own name at a jama of Rs. 13 per annum from the date of the execution of the said solenamah. That appears to me to be an obvious device to get out of the difficulty, which arose, of the solenamah being no longer enforceable. It is to be noted that the Munsif, who decided in favour of t...

Bipro Dass Paul Chowdhury Vs. Surendra Nath Basu and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.467

1. In these three appeals the only question for our consideration is whether by virtue of the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act as amended in 1907, a co-sharer landlord who has purchased a un-transferable occupancy holding in execution of a decree for the rent of his share is entitled to retain exclusive possession as against his co-sharer landlords. In the appeal reliance has been placed on the Full Bench decision reported as Bam Mohan Pal v. Sheikh Kachu 9 C.W.N. 249 : 32 C. 386 : 1 C.L.J. 1 and also upon the language of Section 22(2). Now clearly the case reported as Bam Mohan pal v. Sheikh kachu 9 C.W.N. 249 : 32 C. 386 : 1 C.L.J. 1 does not affect the present question, for in that case the holding in question was a transferable and not a nontransferable occupancy holding. The result is that that Full Bench case in no way affects or impairs the authority of the prior decision reported as Girish Chandra Chowdhry v. Kedar Chandra 27 C. 473 : 4 C.W.N. 569 : 14 Ind....

Kenaram Mondal Vs. Asimaddi Mallakarikar and ors. and Mathura Nath Mon ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.815

1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for possession of certain lands on declaration of title. The appeal is against an order of remand made or purporting to be made under Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Subordinate Judge in the Court of Appeal below has made the order Complained of on the ground that the parties to the proceedings had misunderstood the proper issue in the suit and that such proper issue had not been framed.2. The plaintiffs rested their case on two kabuliyats alleged to have been executed by them in favour of the landlords in the years 1302 and 1304 and accepted by the said landlords. The ease of the defendants was that the lands in suit were originally or had become part of their holding under the same landlords held by them at a juma of Rs. 22. Thus the essential questions that arose for consideration of the Courts below were whether the documents of title relied on by the plaintiffs, that is to say, the two kabuliyats had b...

Srimati Rajabala Dasi Vs. Shyama Charan Banerjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.714

Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 31st July 1914. The plaintiff, who is a Hindu female, brought the suit for a declaration of her title as the reversionary heir of her deceased father to certain properties and for recovery of possession, following on the declaration that a certain deed of compromise entered into in Suit No. 21 of 1910 was inoperative and that certain transfers made by the plaintiff's mother following on the compromise were invalid and without legal necessity. The various defendants in the suit, excepting the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 who are the plaintiff's sons and who took no part in this litigation, filed different defences. The defendant No. 5 raised a distinct plea that the plaintiff before the time the succession opened was leading an unchaste life and was, therefore, according to the Hindu Law, incapable of inheriting on the death of her mother. It has been argued before us...