Kolkata Court April 1917 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.
Ambar Ali and ors. Vs. Lutfe Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.116
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for recovery of possession of a tank on declaration of title. The plaintiffs alleged that the disputed tank had been excavated by their ancestor Laskar Gazi Mozumdar about a century ago, that it had always been known by his name and had been owned and possessed by members of the family from generation to generation and that they themselves were in peaceful possession when they were forcibly dispossessed by the defendants in 1911. They accordingly instituted this suit on the 27th November 1911 for recovery of possession on establishment of title. The defendants contended that the tank was not known by the name of Laskar Gazi and was never held by his descendants. They asserted that it had been abandoned by the previous owners, had become silted tip and had ultimately been settled with them on the 24th October 1911 by the proprietor of the estate, the Mahar...
Hasiswari Debi Vs. Hari Nath Chakerverty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.100
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal must be dismissed. The first point that has been made is that, though this document which created the permanent tenure required registration under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, yet, because the land was a land situated outside the town and let out for the purpose of growing thatching grass, therefore, the interest of the plaintiff that was a permanent interest could have been created without a registered document. I do not agree with that view. This is not a raiyatee holding, nor is it one in which the plaintiff could have acquired a right of occupancy. It is merely a permanent tenure of this small piece of land, and one cannot get a permanent tenure under the Bengal Tenancy Act or under any other Act except by a registered document. The learned Vakil who has argued the appeal on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant thinks that whenever the land is an agricultural land one can get a permanent tenure without a registered document. It is quite tru...
Mohendra Nath Madak Vs. Paresh Chandra Ghosh and Satya Bhupal Bannerje ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.506
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of the 24-Pergannas, dated the 22nd December 1913, affirming the decision of the third Munsif at Alipore. The suit was brought to recover the rent in arrears for the years 1311 to 1314. B.S. The amount claimed was Rs. 54 2-5. The suit was instituted as long ago as the year 1908. So far about nine years, this litigation has been pending. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit. The defendant has appealed to this Court.2. Two points have been raised in this appeal. The first point is that the plaintiff had no right to maintain this suit for rent on the ground that there had been an assignment of his interest in the land. The document under which the property was sold is Exhibit A on the record. It is a document in the English language and in the English form being an indenture expressly made between the plaintiff of the one part and the purchaser of the other part. The document ...
Syedunnessa Khatun Vs. Amiruddi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.353
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, from the judgment of Mr. Justice Mullick in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The case for the plaintiff is that, on the 19th February 1908, she obtained a decree for rent against an under-tenure-holder, that she executed the decree in accordance with the special procedure prescribed in Chapter XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that on the 15th February 1909, she purcbased the defaulting under-tenure at the execution sale. When she proceeded to take possession of the property through Court on the 17th July 1909, the present defendants declined to deliver up possession to her on the allegation that they were in possession as holders of a subordinate under-tenure lawfully created by the defaulter. The plaintiff thereupon proceeded to annul the alleged incumbrance by service of notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and, subsequent...
Kailas Chandra Dutta and ors. Vs. Padma Kishore Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.959
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. These appeals have been preferred, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgments of Mr. Justice Digambar Chatterjee in two suits for recovery of possession of land. The plaintiffs alleged that the lands in dispute constituted non-transferable occupancy holdings and yet the tenants had transferred them to the defendants. The plaintiffs consequently prayed that the defendants might be ejected as trespassers. The defendants contended that the holdings were transferable by custom and local usage. Thereupon an issue was raised in these terms: 'Whether raiyati lands are transferable by usage and custom without the consent of the landlord.' The Court of first instance ruled, on the authority of the decision in Peary Mohan Mukerjee v. Jote Kumar Mukerjee 11 C. W. N. 83 that to prove a custom or usage that occupancy holdings are transferable in any locality, it is not sufficient to show simply that such holdings are sold in the village or neighbouring vill...
Swarna Moyi Dasi Vs. Gayratulla Sardar and Sridhar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.704
1. This is an appeal by the defendant No 3 against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated the 17th June 1515, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Narail. The suit was brought by a 8-annas co-sharer landlord to recover khas possession of his share in a non-transferable holding, on the ground that the original tenant had transferred that share to the appellant, the defendant No. 3, and abandoned the holding. The defendants Nos. 8 to 15 are entitled to the other 8-annas share of the holding, and it is not alleged in the plaint, nor is it found in the judgment, that the other 8 annas has been transferred by the tenant or that the tenant has abandoned that portion of the holding. The view that commended itself to the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court is clearly wrong. He books upon this undivided 8 annas or 1/2 share as one holding belonging to the plaintiff and the remaining undivided 8 annas belonging to the defendants Nos. 8 to 15 as another holding....
Jnanendra Mohan Sen Vs. Hari Ram Rabha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.467
1. This appeal arises out of a title suit brought by the plaintiff against the' defendant Hari Ram Rabha. Plaintiff sought to eject the defendant from about 8 bighas of land,, on the ground that he was a trespasser and that the plaintiff was entitled to possession. It appears that the defendant No. 2 Rani Abhoyeswari Debi purchased certain lakheraj land in 1901. In 1902 plaintiff took settlement from the Rani of the whole 54 bighas of that land. In 1910 he brought a suit against the defendant for rent of the 8 bighas of which the defendant was in possession. In that suit defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and the suit was dismissed on the ground that no such relationshipexisted. Plaintiff accordingly brought this suit in ejectment against the defendant. Defendant's case as put forward in his written statement was that he was a tenant of the Rani under a settlement from the lahherajdars who had sold to the Rani. Evidence was recorded and amongst other witnesses for...
Nanda Lal Banerjee Vs. Umes Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.996
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of the 24-Pergannahs affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. The plaintiff sued for a declaration of his right to a putni which he had purchased at a sale for arrears of rent held under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The sale at which the plaintiff purchased took place on the 16th Decamber 1907. Litigation ensued after the sale and the sale was not confirmed until the 5th September 1908. On the 22nd September 1908, the plaintiff took possession and the present defendant then set up a dur-putni right. On the 8th March 1909, an application was made under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to annul the defendant's encumbrance and the notice was served on the 13th April 1909. The present suit was brought on the 12th April 1912. The defence as raised by the defendant in his written statement was, first of all, that the plaintiff was the benamidar of the defaulting tenant. That wa...
Rajendra Nath Das Vs. Abdul Hakim Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.767
Fletcher, J.1. This is a Rule obtained by the plaintiff calling on the opposite party, the defendant, to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The plaintiff sued on a hand note. By agreement between the parties, the case was referred to arbitration, the arbitrator being a Pleader practising in the Court and, according to the statement of the petitioner in his petition, the engaged Pleader of the defendant. There is no objection to the arbitrator having been engaged either on that occasion or on some other occasion as the Pleader of the defendant. There ought not to be any objection that a gentleman engaged in the legal profession is not entitled to be appointed arbitrator because on some occasions he was engaged by one of the parties as his Pleader. It is a common case that members of the legal profession are appointed arbitrators in suits oven incases where they are engaged for one of the parties. I have seen many cases where the Counsel engaged on one side h...
Chhatrapat Sinha Vs. Maharaja Bahadur Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.861
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiff from a decision of the learned District Judge of Murshidabad, dated the 16th February 1915, affirming the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the same place. The only question that has been argued in the present appeal is this. In the lower Courts, the plaintiff argued that his suit was properly framed and presented to the Court; but at the hearings before us the learned Counsel who has argued the case for the the plaintiff has admitted that the suit was brought in a wrong form and he has argued that the plaintiff ought to have leave to amend his plaint so as to put the suit on a proper basis. That application is much too late and put forward now for the first time, and I am not sure that it can be raised in second appeal for the first time. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Newbould, J.2. I agree....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »