Kolkata Court May 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.
Jadu Nath Manna and ors. Vs. Pran Krishna Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.455
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs allege that he rent is payable in kind, and claim to recover the price of the produce which has not been duly delivered. The defendants contend that the rent was commuted under Section 40 of the Bengal Tenancy Act by an Assistant Settlement Officer on the 12th May 1908, and that, they are consequently liable to pay cash rent at the rate then determined, Thus the question in controversy between, the parties is, whether the order under Section 40 was made with jurisdiction. The Courts below have held that it was beyond the competence of the Civil Court to examine this point. In our opinion this view cannot possibly be sustained.2. The Civil Court, it is well settled, is not competent to examine the propriety of an order of commutation made with jurisdiction under Section 40, in other words, the Civil Court cannot determine whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, commutation was or was not p...
Gour Mondal and anr. Vs. Peari Majhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.864
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated the 19th March 1913, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Narail. The case has already been before this Court once. On the 29th November 1916, the case was remanded to the lower Appellate Court for a finding of fact as to whether the plaintiff had been in possession, the Court having decided the question of law in favour of the plaintiff that although the plaintiff's lease had been in excess of what a raiyat is entitled to grant to an under-raiyat under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, yet if the plaintiff had been in possession of the property on the basis of the kabuliyat, he had sufficient interest in the property to recover the land. The case comes back to this Court with a finding in favour of the plaintiff. We must, therefore, reverse the decision of the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge and restore the decree of the Munsif with costs in all Co...
Adwaita Chandra Mondal and ors. Vs. Krishnadhan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.933
1. This is an appeal against an order granting Probate of a Will dated the 3rd June 1885. The testator died sometime between 1885 and 1892.2. By his Will he gave 4 annas of his estate to his widow, 4 annas to each of his two daughters, and the remaining 4 annas to one Joy Hari Das, who is described as his foster-nephew, with the direction that on the death of any one of them, his or her share would devolve on the survivors. There is also a provision in the Will that 12 bighas of land shall be appropriated for the purpose of the worship of the deities and other religious ceremonies, for the entertainment of guests and the payment of annual pronami to the guru. The Will was a registered one, but no application for Probate, was made until the year 1914. It appears that on the death of the widow and daughters of the testator, Joy Hari, the surviving legatee under the Will, had some litigation with the nephews, i.e., the brother's sons of the testator, some of whom are the appellants before...
Khondkar Mehdi HosseIn and ors. Vs. Umesh Chandra Mukherjee and of ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.964
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of land with mesne profits. On the 27th July 1866, the plaintiffs obtained a putni of two villages from the zemindar defendants. A bonus of Rs. 1,000 was paid for this lease and the annual rent was fixed in perpetuity at Rs. 501. Within the ambit of the lands comprised in the putni lease, there were chowkidari chakran lands, at that time in the occupation of chowkidars These lands were subsequently resumed by the Government and transferred to the zemindars, in conformity with the provisions of the Village Chowkidars Act, 1870. The zemindar took possession of the lands and settled them with tenants. The plaintiffs, who were putnidars, thereupon instituted this suit on the 11th June 1910 for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The Courts below have concurrently made a decree in their favour; but the two Courts have disagreed as to the terms under which the plaintiffs are ...
Gammeter Vs. the Controller of Patents and Designs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1917
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.437
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Ernest Otto Gammeter against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Fletcher. 2. The matter arises in connection with an application which was made by Mr. Gam-meter to the Controller of Patents and Designs on the 16th of January 1915, whereby the Controller was requested to register the accompanying design in class. The description of the design was as follows: 'The design consists of a metal band, for attaching a watch to the wrist and novelty is claimed for such a band, preferably of silver, passed' below the watch through loops affixed to each side of the watch case, which method by preventing the bending of the hand between the said loops, tends to draw the free ends of the band apart, and thus assisted by the resilience of the metal, prevent the accidental opening of the fastening' means which consist of one or more studs on one end and projecting from either the inner or outer side of the band, taking into one or more or sev...
Brajendra Lal Das and ors. Vs. Deb NaraIn Tewari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.894
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property on declaration of title. The lands in dispute were originally chowkidari chakran lands, which were resumed under the provisions of the Village Chowkidari Act, 1870, and were transferred to the plaintiffs on the 2nd February 1900. Since then, the proprietors of the estate have defaulted to pay Government revenue, with the result that the parent estate was sold on the 27th March 1907 when it was purchased by the appellants. The plaintiffs contend that their title to the chowkidari chakran lands was not affected by the sale of the parent estate and that they are consequently entitled to recover possession thereof. The defendants, on the other hand, maintain that the sale under the provisions of Act XI of 1859 transferred to them, not merely the lands comprised in the parent estate, but also the resumed chowkidari chakran lands. The Courts below have concurrently negatived this contention on ...
Naurang Singh Vs. Janardan Kishore Lal Singh Deo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.952
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for arrears of rent of a colliery held by him under the plaintiffs on the basis of a lease, dated the 23rd September 1901. The plaintiffs seek to recover their dues in respect of the years 1313 to 1317 B. S., and pray for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that, according to the terms of the contract between the parties, the lease had been forfeited by non-payment of rent. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit. His decision has been assailed in this Court on two grounds, namely first, that a larger sum has been allowed to the plaintiffs than what is really due to them, and, secondly, that, on the face of the plaint, the claim for ejectment cannot be sustained.2. The first point is sought to be established in two ways, namely, first, that credit should have been allowed for a sum of Rs. 1,500 and secondly, that abatement of rent should have been allowed in respect of seven instead of six bighas. There is no force in either of th...
Serafat Ali Vs. Issar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.30
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for contribution. The facts material for the determination of the question of law raised before us, stripped of superfluous details, may be briefly stated. X, a mortgagee, sued A, B and C as re-presentatives-in-interest of his mortgagor, and obtained a decree. The decree was by consent as to two of these persons and was ex parte as regards the other. A thereafter satisfied the judgment-debtor in full. A: now sues to recover two-thirds of the money paid by him from B and C, B and C deny that A had any interest in the mortgaged property and urge that the payment made by A must consequently be deemed voluntary. The Court of first instance, upon the evidence, came to the conclusion that A had an interest in the mortgaged property and was entitled to maintain the suit for contribution against B and C. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge has held that A had no interest in the property, and in this view, he has dismissed the suit. The result is th...
Giribala Dasi Vs. Nitya Lal Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.905
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration that a decree for arrears of rent and the execution sale con sequent thereon have not affected his right, title and interest. The claim has not been tried on the merits bat has been dismissed on the preliminary ground that it h barred under the provisions of Section 11 and Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. The reasons assigned in support of this view may be briefly stated. The plaintiff instituted a suit on the 18th June 1909 in the Court of the Munsif of Burdwan for declaration that the rent-decree mentioned and the sale consequent thereon were fraudulent; there was no claim for recovery of possession, as on the date of the institution of the suit, the plaintiff had not been deprived of possession of the disputed property. The relief claimed was valued at Rs. 600. The suit was not tried on the merits and was dismissed for default on the 6th June 1910. On the 30th Septem...
Jafar Ali and anr. Vs. Har Gobinda Sarma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.65
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the years 1272 to 1274 M. S. brought by the plaintiff Har Gobinda Sarma against the tenants Jafar Ali and others. The plaintiff claimed to be the sole landlord and as such, claimed the entire rent of the holding. There was another suit brought by one Jagat Chandra Chakravarti against the same tenants and for the same period. The two suits were tried together as analogous. The same evidence was recorded in both the oases and the two suits were disposed of by the same judgment by the Court of first instance, although there were two separate decrees in the two suits.2. The Court of first instance held that Har Gobinda was entitled to a 10-annas share of the rent and Jagat Chandra the plaintiff in the other suit was entitled to the remaining 6-annas share of rent.3. It ought to be mentioned that Har Gobinda was a party defendant to the suit of Jagat Chandra. There was no appeal preferred against the decree passed in the suit instituted by Jagat Chand...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »