Kolkata Court July 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.
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Ahamud Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.687
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent under the following, circumstances.2. It appears that a brahmattar tenure was held by one Golak and Chandratarn within the zemindari of the Maharaja of Tipperah. The latter brought a suit and obtained a decree for resumption of the lakhraj against Golak in the year 1862, but no rent was assessed on the tenure at the time. On the 27th March 1866, Golak and Chandratarn granted a miras to two persons at a permanent rent of Rs. 45. The latter sold the miras to one Abkjan Bibi on the 28th February 1871, On the 23rd August of the same year, Golak and Chandratarn sold the right to receive rent to the extent of Rs. 33 out of the Rs. 45 reserved as the miras rent, which was described in the conveyance as malikana masahara, to the then holder of the miras, Abkjan Bibi, Subsequently in the year 1875, the Maharaja sued Golak, Chandratarn as well as Abkjan Bibi for assessment of rent. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance but was decreed ...
Kaseswar Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Annoda Prosad Patra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.863
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiff No. 1 is the proprietor, and the other plaintiffs are tenants, under him, of two villages Khasnan and Bishubera. To the east of these villages lie the villages of Sonamni and Gazipur, owned by the defendants. It is conceded that the plaintiffs' villages are higher than the defendants' villages, and that the natural flow of surface water from the former is eastwards over the latter. Formerly the surface water of the four villages found an outlet into a stream called the Banspati on the east of defendants' villages, but the bed of this stream has gradually risen until it is above the level of the fields lying to the west of it. A band separates Bishubera from Gazipur and Sonamni, called the' pakband, and another band lies between the two latter villages and the stream on the east. In each of these bands is a 'hana' or opening through which the water used to flow: but both hanas were closed by the defendants several years ago. The plaintiffs sued for a declara...
Sarat Chundra Bose in His Own Right and as Heir of Late Principal Chow ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.548
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 2 against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Khulna, dated the 25th February 1915, affirming the decision of the Additional Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought by the plaintiff Company to recover a sum of Rs. 400 and interest against the defendant No. 1, who is now represented by the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff Company is entitled to a putni in 4-annas share in certain property. Before the grapt of the putni, the defendant No. 1 had obtained an ijara of certain of the property and as ijaradar she let out a part of the property, namely, a jalkar, to two people named Chandi Charan Roy and Biswanath Roy, the defend, ants Nos. 3 and 4 in the present case, who held this jalkar at a rent of Rs. 2,625 per annum. The defendant No. 1, under an agreement with the plaintiff Company, surrendered the ijara and assigned to the Company certain rents that were sail to have been in arrear including, amongst others, a sum of...
Moulvi Abdul (Abdur) Rashid Khan Vs. Munshi Safar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.614
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendants from the disputed land, on the ground that the defendants were liable to be ejected under an express covenant in the kabuliyat executed by their predecessor-in-interest, one Amir-ud-din, on the 16th Falgun 1296.2. It was stipulated in the kabuliyat that the tenant would be liable to ejectment if, he failed to pay rent 'through wickedness'. The learned Subordinate Judge says that there is 'no allegation of any wickedness' on the part of the defendant in the plaint.3. We think that this claim for ejectment must fail on the simple ground that the plaintiff bases his cause of action from 1314 and claims rent for the years 1314 to 1319, i. e., for six years. By claiming rent subsequent to the default in payment of rent which, according to the plaintiff, gave him cause of action for ejectment, the plaintiff must be taken to have waived the forfeiture under Section 112 of the Transfer of Property Act.4. The appeal must accord...
Kedar Nath Mana Vs. Jogendra Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.815
1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances. One Benode Behari Bose obtained a decree in the Presidency Small Cause Court against the appellant and subsequently sold this decree to one Jogendra Nath Das. At the instance of Jogendra Nath Dass the decree of the Small Cause Court was transferred for execution to the Munsif at Uluberia, Before the Munsif three objections were taken and they were all overruled by him. There was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge but that was dismissed. The first objection taken in this Court is that in the certificate, as also in the copy of the decree, the name of Benode Behari Das was written in place of Benode Behari Bose. This apparently was merely a clerical error and is of no consequence.2. The second objection relates to the notice of assignment. The objections that were pressed in both the lower Courts were of an entirely different nature. We cannot, therefore, go into the question regarding the notice of assignment.3. The third point i...
Amrita Lal Mandal and ors. Vs. Bhutnath Mandal and ors. and Aukhoy Kum ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.735
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit sought for a declaration of title to and recovery of possession of a certain land.2. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their title to the land. It also found that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had been in possession of the land for a long time and that the plaintiffs had never been in possession. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had proved their title. After stating this decision he went on to say that the judgment of the first Court had not dealt with the matter of limitation and possession, and accordingly lie sent the case back to the first Court for decision of five issues after recording such evidence as the parties might think fit to adduce. Of the live issues mentioned, 1st and 10th are merely formal, 9th depends upon the decision of the main issues and 2nd and 4th are technical. We have not been shown any reason for ...
Helaluddi Molla Alias Elai Molla Vs. Abdul Gafur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.936
1. This Rule must be made absolute. It is quite clear from the cause of action as given in the proceedings of the Court that the suit is of a nature mentioned in Article 35 (ii) of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. A suit of that nature is excluded from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court. The Rule must, therefore, be made absolute. We make no order as to costs, as the opposite party has not entered appearance....
Mohunta Bhagwan Das Vs. Surendra NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.521
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad, dated the 30fch May 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Lalbagh. The case is an interesting one. The question is, whether specific performance can be had against the defendant of a covenant contained in the lease under which he holds?'. The covenant is in these terms:---'I shall file with you a set of jama wasil baki and jama mofussil papers at the close of every year.' Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant are the original lessor or the lessee. The lease is dated 1857 and the liability is sought to be enforced against the defendant purely by reason of the privity of estate. The first question, therefore, that has been argued is an important and, in many oases, a difficult question, I think, in this ease it is a difficult question, namely, as to whether this particular covenant runs with, the land. The rule in Spencer's case 8m. L. C. Vol. I. (12th Edn.) page 62: 5 Co. Rep. 16 ...
Rashed Kazi Vs. Pachoo Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.534
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a judgment of the learned District Judge of Khulna, dated the 25th July 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Bagarhat. The suit was a suit brought by a raiyat to eject an under-raiyat. The defence was that the defendant held under a permanent sub-lease. The question as to the validity of a document like this between a raiyat and an under-raiyat has been the subject of judicial decision on many occasions in this Court. The later course of decisions, however, turns on a point that did not find a place nor was considered in the earlier judgments. The earlier judgments were not all one way, but there was no doubt a considerable body of authority for saying that the under-lease was good between the raiyat and the under-raiyat. The later cases, as I have said, were decided on different grounds, and they were decided on this ground that the under-lease was inadmissible in evidence and could not be looked at to enable the Court...
Baikanta Nath Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Lakshan Chandra Chatterjee and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.875
1. This appeal, which has been preferred against a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of the 24-Pergannahs reversing the decision of the Munsif at Baruipur, must be dismissed. The plaintiffs who are the appellants before us brought the suit with reference to an encroachment on a road and the removal of the trees growing thereon, which they alleged to be the property in iimali between them and the defendants and also with reference to the excavation of a Khal in certain property which the plaintiffs alleged had fallen into their sole lot in a certain partition proceeding. The persons said to have encroached upon the road were the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The other defendants are said to have excavated the Khal. Certain incidental and consequential reliefs were also asked for. The learned Munsif decreed the suit against all the defendants disbelieving a certain document Exhibit A which was stated to be an istimrari mourasi makarrari patta. The first two defendants appealed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »