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.
Satindra Mohun Tagore and anr. Vs. Sarala Sundari Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.59
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case the appeal is from the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Chitty, which was given upon an application by the plaintiffs in a testamentary suit that a certain caveat, which was filed on the 20th of December 1916 by Satindra Mohun Tagore and Ronendra Mohun Tagore, should be discharged. The Will which was the subject-matter of the suit was the Will of one Atanunandan Tagore who died, as we are informed, at the age of 19 years, and left a widow who was then 13 years old and who at the time of the suit was said to be 16 years old. Caveats had been entered against the Will by three persons, Diptendra Mohan Tagore, Bidyut Prokash Ganguly and Srimati Haziri Daasi Debi. Of these Diptendra Mohun Tagore is now dead; Bidyut Prokash Ganguly is alive; and so is Srimati Haziri Dassi Debi who is the mother of the widow of the testator Atanunandan. Caveats had also been entered by the two appellants Satindra Mohun Tagore and Ronendra Mohun Tagore. But on ...
Probhat Chandra Shome and ors. Vs. Shashadhar Kumar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.215
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Dacca, dated 19th April 1915, confirming the decree of the Munsif of Munshiganj.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, Shashadhar Kumar Grhose, for the cancellation of an agreement dated the 22nd Magh 1319 (4th February 1913). It appears that the plaintiff and the defendants are co-owners of certain properties. Something occurred early in November 1912, which led the parties to file complaints against each other in the Criminal Court. The agreement in question, which is an agreement for the partition of the common properties, is expressed to have been made for the purpose of putting an end to all disputes between the parties and for the purpose of settling or compromising the criminal cases which had been instituted and were still pending at the time.3. The Courts below have concurred in setting aside the agreement on three grounds. They have held, firstly, that the agreement is opposed to publ...
Maharaja Bahadur Sir Prodyot Coomar Tagore, Kt. and ors. Vs. Krishnamo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.513
Richardson, J.1. I confess that I have had some difficulty with this appeal and the analogous appeals which were argued along with it. I have been greatly impressed with what the Settlement Officer says in his judgment in the present case (paragraph 3) about the origin and special character of these jotes. He says that they are known as khud jotes and he observes with great force that the term is reminiscent of the khud kasht raiyats of an earlier period. He mentions other features in the evidence which go far to show that in the opinion at any rate of the landlord's officers, the tenants of these jotes possess rights which,, to use a natural term, may be described as permanent residential rights. I have a strong suspicion that in spite of their present area the jotes were in their origin raiyati holdings, or they may have grown put of smaller holdings of a raiyati character. The special incidents .now attached or sought to be attached to them by contract resemble very largely the ordi...
Satis Chandra Basu and ors. Vs. Nittya Gopal Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.419
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 from a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of the 24. Pergannahs, dated the 15th March 1913, affirming a decision of the Munsif at Diamond Harbour. The only question raised in this appeal is the question of limitation and that is whether Article 3 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act applies to this case or whether the ordinary rate of twelve years applies. The father of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was the landlord of the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants. He obtained in the first instance, in the year 1899, an ex parte decree for rent. That was set aside and the case was tried on the merits and a new decree was passed. In execution of that decree the . property was put up to sale and purchased ' by the landlord and possession was delivered in the year 1904. Then the landlord settled some of the lands with the present tenants, the defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The plaintiffs brought their suit ...
Bhupendra Kumar Chakravarty Vs. Pyari Mohan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.464
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the learned District Judge of the Twenty four Parganahs modifying a decision of the Subordinate Judge at Alipur. The present suit was instituted as long ago as the 9th April 1906, and is, therefore, slightly more than eleven years old to-day, and I think that the delay in the proceedings casts no credit either on the Courts or on the parties engaged in the litigation. The suit was a suit for possession brought by the plaintiff as the assignee of a lease granted by the defendant No. 3 in the month of June 1699, and the suit was principally brought against the contesting defendant who had obtained a lease from the same lessor in August 1899, his property adjoining the property let out to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title. The case as decided by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court in the judgment now under appeal is this :-The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant was acting in good faith ...
Biswanath Bhattacharjee Vs. Sameswar Sarma Baruah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.348
Richardson, J.1. The case as it seems to me is really a simple one. It relates to an instalment decree, dated the 21st December 1908. The decree is founded on a judgment in these terms:'Defendant admits the claim but prays for an order to pay by instalments. Plaintiff will get a decree with costs for the amount claimed to be paid in yearly instalments of Rs. 600 (six hundred) payable on July 15th each year with interest at 12 per cent. In default of any instalment the whole amount will be payable.'2. The decree itself runs as follows:'It is ordered that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Bs, 2,888-8-0 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum, with the costs of the suit.3. The amount decreed with casts to be paid in yearly instalment of Rs. 600 (six hundred) payable on July 15th each year. In default of any instalment the whole amount will be payable.'4. In the decree the words underlined (italicised) are printed and it may be that the printed form of wh...
Sudhanya Kumar Poddar Vs. Gouranga Chandra Saha Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.542
Richardson, J.1. The determination of this appeal turns on the true construction of Clause (h) of Section 148 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The clause is in the following terms.2. 'Nothwithstanding anything contained in Section 232 (now Order XXI, Rule 16) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an application for the execution of a decree for arrears obtained by a landlord shall not be made by an assignee of the decree, unless the landlord's interest in the land has become and is vested in him.'3. At first sight the meaning of the language used seems plain, but reported oases show that there are difficulties lurking under the surface. In some cases such as Karuna Moyi Barterjee v. Surendra Nath Mookerjee 26 C. 176 : 13 Ind. Dec. (N.S) 717. the question has arisen whether the decree sought to be executed was a 'decree for arrears' within the meaning of the clause. The expressions 'assignee' and landlord's interest' have also been the subject of debate Chhatrapat Singh v. Gopi Chand Bothra 26 C. 7...
Sheikh Juman and ors. Vs. Mohammad Nabineoaz and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.779
Richardson, J.1. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover three plots of land which originally belonged to the plaintiffs Nos, 1 and 2 and the predecessor of the other plaintiffs. The defendants are in possession and the principal question is whether they obtained possession as usufructuary mortgagees for a term which has expired or in the character of purchasers. The defendants produced two unregistered conveyances executed by some of the plaintiffs or their predecessors one relating to plots Nos. 1 and 2 and the other to plot No. 3 Neither plots Nos. 1 and 2 nor plot No. 3 exceeds Rs. 100 in value. Relying upon the unregistered documents the Courts below have found that the transaction in each case was a sale, and not a mortgage, and that the sales were completed by the possession duly delivered by the vendors to the vendees. To the extent, therefore, of the title so acquired and so found the plaintiff's suit has been wholly dismissed.2. The plaintiffs have appealed and it h...
BasiruddIn Baiddy Vs. Hari Mohan Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.720
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the Twenty-four Pergannahs, dated the 7th September 1914, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Barasat The suit was brought for rent. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit for the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The first point argued before us was whether a certain kabuliyat, which the plaintiff had lodged into Court along with his plaint but which had not been proved or given in evidence, ought-toot to have been referred to by the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below in assessing the rent payable by the defendant. This kabuliyat, it was stated by the learned Vakil appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant before us, had been admitted by his client in his written statement. I am not prepared to agree with the view of the learned Vakil that the statement in his client's written statement amounts to an admission of the kabuliyat. But the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court re...
Dhuki Ram Dhok Vs. Matabi Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.795
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of the Second Court of the 24-Pergannahs affirming the decision of the Munsif of the Second Court at Alipore. The plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment after service of a notice to quit. The only point urged in this appeal is about the sufficiency of the notice. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found that the notice was a six months' notice expiring at the end of the Bengali year. But the notice was not served six clear months before because apparently it was served about the 1st Kartik and, to give six clear months, it ought to have been served not later than the last day of Aswin. But the finding is that the defendant is a tenant-at-will of the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts have found that the tenancy is of that nature, and as it is a tenancy-at-will, it is manifest that the Court could find that this notice served about the 1st Kartik expiring at the end of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »