Kolkata Court July 1917 Judgments
Halodhar Malo and ors. Vs. Kali Prosonno Basu Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.18
Fletcher, J 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Nos. 10 and 11 against a decision of the learned Subirdinate Judge of Dacca, dated the 10th July 1914, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Munshigunge. The suit was brought with reference to a chur which had formed in what is known as the Bahar Khal. The plaintiffs are the tenants of the owners of the land on the north bank of the river and they claimed the land as being a gradual accession to the land on the north bank of the river. The defendants said that it was an island that had sprung up in the river ands therefore, did not belong to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case about the re-formation in situ has now been found to be untrue. The only question is whether in this case the learned Judge, having found that the chur was, in fact, an island which formed in this river Bahar Khal, ought to have proceeded to enquire whether the river was or was not fordable at any season of the year. This point was not raised in the issues set...
Tag this Judgment!Muralidhar Roy and ors. and Raja Srinath Roy and ors. Vs. Sasadhur Pal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.344
Fletcher, J. 1. These are two appeals preferred by the plaintiffs against a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Dacca, dated the 17th April 1914, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a certain share in a number of villages which they had purchased. The defence was that the defendants held under a subordinate tenure at a rent which was not liable to enhancement. The lower Courts have accepted the story as to the tenure in respect of three villages. No question arises with respect to these villages. With regard to the other villages, the learned Judges in the Courts below held that there had been encroachments and that the claim of the landlords to recover possession was barred by limitation, on the ground that the tenant had acquired a limited interest by-adverse possession. That is the only point that arises in these appeals. That the learned Judges found that there was a possession for more tha...
Tag this Judgment!Satyesh Chandra Sarkar and ors. Vs. Haji Jillar Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.721
1. This is an appeal by the tenant defendants in a suit for apportionment of rent and for recovery of arrears at the rate settled by the decree. The Courts below have decreed the suit. On the present appeal, the tenants do not attack the decree for apportionment of rent, but they contend that the claim for arrears should have been dismissed, inasmuch as at the date of the institution of the suit, there were no arrears due. This contention is based on the fact that between the 15th May 1911 and the 19th August 1912, the tenants had made sixteen deposits in Court under Section 61 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is not disputed that if these deposits were validly made, no arrears were due at the date of the commencement of the suit. The question in controversy consequently reduces to this: Were the deposits made in accordance with Section 61?2. This plaintiff and the fourth defendants were, at the date of the institution of this suit, joint landlords of the tenant defendants, and this is th...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh NasiruddIn Midda Vs. Sheikh Sidhoo Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.361
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit instituted by him on the 21st December 1912 for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title by purchase or on specific performance of a contract of sale. The case for the plaintiff is that the disputed property belonged to the first four defendants, that he obtained a conveyance from them on the 30th November 1912 and that his vendors had not only failed to register the document and to place him in possession but had transferred the property to the 5th defendant. The latter conveyance bears date the 29th November 1912, but the plaintiff asserts that the document is collusive and has in fact bean antedated. The Court of first instance found on the merits in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit, The Court held that the sale to the 5th defendant was collusive and without consideration and that although it purported to be anterior to the agreement whereon the plaintiff relied, the transaction took place really after the ins...
Tag this Judgment!Surendranath Dey and ors. Vs. Rajindra Chandra Chandra and anr. Minors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.740
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit to enforce a mortgage dated the 1st September 1901. Two questions are controversy at this stage, namely, first, is the second parcel subject to an en foroeable charge; and secondly, what is the amount still due to the plaintiffs?2. The property in question originally formed part of a ghatwali tenure. Before the mort gage was esecuted, an agreement had been made on the 5th August 1901 between the to the effect that on resumption the land would be settled with the ghatwal. On the same day, the ghatwal executed a movrasi mukarari kabuliyat in favour of the zemindar, and, on the 17th December 1901, the zemindar executed a mourasi mukarari patta in favour of the ghatwal. The ghatwal, however, was not released from bis Police duties till the 17th June 1902. Between the execution of the mortgage and the completion of the resumption proceedings, the ghatwal, on the 19th May 1902, sold the second parcel to the predecessors-in-interest of the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh AmiruddIn Ahmed Alias Tahur Bap Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.321
Teunon, J.1. In this case the appellant before us has been convicted of dacoity and sentenced under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, to rigorous imprisonment for five years.2. The trial was by Jury in the Court of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensing and what has been urged before us is that the trial has been vitiated by the erroneous admission of evidence and by serious misdirections in the learned Judge's charge.3. It appears that on the night of the 24th of November 1916, at a village called Rajoi, a serious dacoity took place in the houses of two cousins Rajendra and Debendra Bhoumik. Prom the house of Debendra. cash, currency notes, ornaments and other articles to an aggregate value of over Rs. 9,000 and from Rajendra's house cash' and other property to the value of some Rs. 800 are said to have been removed.4. In connection with this dacoity and with a dacoity that took place in village Baliapara about a month before, the appellant, it appears, came into touch with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jnan Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Rajani Kanta Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.850
1. The suit oat of which this appeal arises was one to recover possession of the lands in dispute under the following circumstances. The lands belonged originally to the plaintiff. They were sold in execution of a decree for money against him and purchased by on Debendra in March 1905, and symbolical possession was taken by him in March 1906. Debendra agreed to convey the lands to the plaintiff in consideration of a sum of Rs. 232 and actually executed a conveyance on the 27th March 1906, but it was not registered as plaintiff paid only Rs. 200 out of the consideration. The plaintiff, however, was allowed to remain in possession. On the 17th July 1907 the lands were sold in execution of another money decree against the plaintiff, and were purchased by the defendant No. 1, who obtained possession of the lands. The plaintiff on the 29th November 1907 obtained a second kobala from Debendra which was duly registered. It is upon the strength of this second kobala that the plaintiff brought ...
Tag this Judgment!Yar Mohammad Saha Vs. Hayat Mohammad Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.768
Chatterjea, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is, whether the suit out of which it arises is barred by limitation under Article 47 of the Limitation Act.2. It appears that the plaintiff, was the first party, and the defendants were the second party, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code with respect to the land in dispute in this suit, the proceeding having been initiated by the plaintiff himself. The Magistrate made a preliminary order under Sub-section 1 of that section and the parties filed their respective written statements. The plaintiff examined three witnesses before the Magistrate and then put in a petition in which he stated: I beg respectfully to state that I have instituted a case under the aforesaid section. I shall not prosecute that case under the said section. I shall conduct the case in Civil Court and I shall not enter upon the said land until the matter shall have been settled by the Civil Court. I, therefore, pray that the said cas...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Charan Acharjee Vs. Khundkarenamal Huq and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.705
1. This is an appeal by the third defendant in a suit for partition of joint property. The lands are comprised in three plots and are included in an ayma estate within the Hooghly Collectorate. The case for the plaintiffs is that they have acquired a nine tenths share of the lands and the third defendant has acquired the remaining share. The plaintiffs accordingly seek to have these lands partitioned. One of the defences is that this is really a suit for a partial partition and is consequently not maintainable. The Court of first instance overruled this contention, on a ground, which cannot be sustained and which need not he examined for our present purpose. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has confirmed the decree of the Trial Court but the reasons assigned by him in support of his conclusion are not intelligible. He sets out the first question for determination in these terms; namely, whether the suit is one for partial partition and whether it is maintainable. But his discussion o...
Tag this Judgment!The River Steam Navigation Company, Ltd. and anr. Vs. Hazarimal Multan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.919; 27CalLJ294; AIR1918Cal896
1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of the defendants calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause why the decree passed against them by the Munsif of Tezpur and modified on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of the Assam Valley Districts should not be set aside on the ground that condition No. 17 of the Bill of Lading requiring service of notice of claim at the defendants' office in Calcutta was perfectly legal, and that the Courts below had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit without strict compliance therewith being proved. The clause in question runs as follows:2. 'No claim of any kind whatsoever in respect of the contract shall be valid, unless notice in writing shall be given and delivered at the office of the Company at Calcutta within six months from the date of any default, loss or damage in respect of which such claim arises.' The facts are that on 16th August 1914 goods were shipped by the defendant Companies' steamer at Calcutta consigned to the plaintiffs at Bishwanath Gh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »