Kolkata Court August 1917 Judgments
Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Munshi Mahomad Doulat Kh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.59
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. I have had the opportunity of reading the judgment about to be delivered by my learned brother, Teunon, J. I agree with that judgment. I merely wish to add a few words with regard to the second contention raised by the defendants, viz., that inasmuch as in the proceedings instituted in 1896 under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act by the, plaintiff, the defendants had asserted that the tenure had been held at a rent which had not been changed; from the time of the Permanent Settlement, and that, therefore, the rent could not be enhanced, and that thereupon the plaintiff withdrew his application and that inasmuch as this suit was not brought until 16th December 1911, more than twelve years thereafter, the Suit was barred by the Act of Limitation. For the consideration of this question it must be assumed that it was one of the terms of the contract, regulating the rights of the parties, that the rent was capable of enhancement. If this be so, in my judgment, i...
Tag this Judgment!Chandi Charan Nath Vs. Srimati Somla Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.254
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 ejectment. On the 20th February 1891 the plaintiff granted an under raiyati lease to the defendant. The lease was not for any specified term, but was described as a barsana patta (yearly lease). The grantor stated that she had a raigati interest in the land under a grant from her superior landlord, dated the 26th November 1838; and the grantee was enjoined to have an entry made in the Survey and Settlement Record that the grantor possessed a raiyati right and the grantee himself a harsana right. On the 12th April 1911 the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant calling upon him to quit the land at the end of six months. On the 14th August 1911, she instituted the present suit to eject the defendant who had not left the land in spite of the notice to quit. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the tenancy was permanent a...
Tag this Judgment!Muga Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.251
1. This is a Rule issued at the instance of Muga Khan calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and. sentence passed on the petitioner under Section 19 of the Indian Police Aot (V of 1861) should not be set aside, on the ground that the mere failure to attend the police station to receive his belt and take charge of his appointment as a special constable did not amount to a refusal to serve within the meaning of that section. Other grounds were put forward by the petitioner before us but the Rule was confined to the ground above stated.2. It appeals that on 17th April 1917 a notice was issued to the petitioner reciting the necessity for the appointment of special constables and informing him that he was appointed a special constable for three months under Section 17 of Act V of 1861. The notice concluded as follows: 'Be it stated that you should appear in police station Barguna within three days of the receipt of this notice and take belt and orders of your du...
Tag this Judgment!Nepusi Bewa Vs. Nasiruddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.730
1. This is a reference under Rule 1 of Order XLVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The question referred has been framed by the Court below in these terms: 'Whether Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act would apply at all to the case of a person who has been substituted as plaintiff for one who has died pending the suit.' The reference, however, must be limited to the true scope of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4, as we are concerned with a suit and not with an execution proceeding which is governed by Section 4(1)(6).2. One Dalimullah Mandal instituted this suit on the 28th August 1916 for recovery of money due on a bond. The plaint was registered, and the case was fixed for disposal on the 21st September 1916. On that date it was reported that the plaintiff was dead, and the case was adjourred. On the 15th December 1916, the widow of the deceased plaintiff applied, for herself and on behalf of her infant sons and daughters, for leave to prosecute the suit and an...
Tag this Judgment!Jirijanath Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Kanai Lal Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.169
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant No. 1, who was a gomasta of the plaintiffs, and the other defendants (defendants Nos. 2 to 7) who as sureties of the defendant No. 1 had executed a security bond. The suit was originally filed in the Munsif's Court on the 10th May 1912, being valued at Rs. 900. Subsequently the valuation was raised to Rs. 6,438 and the plaint was taken back from that Court and filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on the 16th June 1913.2. Only the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 appeared and filed a written statement in the suit and on the 30th June 1914 an application was made for referring the matter in dispute to the arbitration of one Amrita Lal Hazra. The Court accordingly referred the matter to the arbitrator, and the latter submitted his award on the 17th August 1914, by which he held that the defendants were liable for Rs. 753-9-6 only. The plaintiffs took objections to the award on...
Tag this Judgment!Juranu Mahamad Vs. Jathi Mahamed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.783
1. The facts are clearly stated by the learned Munsif. In execution of a decree obtained by the defendant as mortgagee of an occupancy holding, the holding was put up to sale and purchased by the plaintiff in February 1910 for Rs. 335. The plaintiff obtained possession in May 1910, but was subsequently sued in ejectment by the landlords in whose favour a decree was made on the 28th August 1912. The plaintiff then brought the present suit to recover his purchase-money with interest. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif who held that such a suit was not maintainable. An appeal by the plaintiff was successful and the appeal before us has been preferred by the defendant from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge dated the 6th March 1915.2. The question is whether an auction-purchaser, who is deprived of the property sold to him by reason of the fact that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest therein or who is evicted under a title paramount to that of the judgment-debtor,...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Baikantha Nath Sen Bahadur Vs. Ramapati Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.767
1. The question for determination in this Rule is, whether the suit as framed is maintainable under Section 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff alleged, in the first paragraph of the plaint, that he had separately collected his share of the rent from the tenant-defendant in previous years. In the second paragraph he stated that he had demanded his separate share of the rent from the tenant but to no avail. He added, in the third paragraph, that he was not aware whether his cosharers (whom he joined as defendants) had separately realised their shares of the rent. In the first clause of the fourth paragraph he prayed that a decree might be made in his favour for his share of the rent; then followed a second alternative clause to the effect that if it was found that the tenant had not paid the rent due to his co-sharers, he might be granted leave to amend the plaint so as to secure a decree for the entire sum. We are of opinion that this is not a plaint in a rent suit of the cha...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Nagendra Bala Dassi Wife of Nabakumar Hazra Vs. Debendra Nath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.13
1. This is an appeal against an order in an execution case to the effect that the decree must be considered as satisfied and the judgment-debtors fully discharged. The events which have led up to this order are not in controversy at this stage. On 19th February 1907, Rani Mrinalini, wife of Raja Narendra Lal Khan of Narajole, obtained a consent decree in a mortgage suit against the respondents. There were various proceedings in execution, which need not be recited for our present purpose. On the 15th February 1915, the present appellant, Nagendra Bala Dassi, applied to the execution Court to have her name substituted in the place of the decree-holder, on the allegation that she had taken an assignment of the decree on the 7th February 1915. On the 20th February 1915, the original decree-holder intimated to the Court that she had transferred: the decree and had no objection to the grant of the application. The judgment-debtors took time to put in objections, but as they did not enter ap...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahed Khan Vs. Natabar Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.280
Lancelot Sanderson, C. J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decision of Mr. Justice Newbould, whereby he affirmed the judgment of the District Judge.2. The suit was for the khas possession of certain land by ejecting the defendants on whom, the plaintiff said, he had served notice under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff alleged that he was a raiyat and that the defendants were under-raiyats.3. The defendants' case was that they were not under-raiyats, that they themselves were raiyats and the plaintiff was a tenure-holder. Their further defence was that even if they were under-raiyats, notice had not been served upon them.4. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the notice had not been served and secondly, that the defendants were raiyats and consequently could not be evicted.5. Now in this Court it is admitted that the appeal must be dismissed, because proper notice was not served upon the defendants, even if they were under-raiyats. But ...
Tag this Judgment!Hamdu Mia and ors Vs. Ramdhan Dhar and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.461
1. The plaintiff respondent, as purchaser of an entire estate at a sale held under Act XI of 1859 in the year 1909, sued to recover possession of the lands in dispute, which formed part of that estate, from the defendants who have been in possession of the lands for more than 12 years from before the date of the sale. It is found that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the estate at the time when the above sale took place, having previously purchased the same from the former owners in the year 1908 in the benami of one Baroda Charan. He defaulted to pay the Government revenue and himself purchased the estate when it was sold in 1909. The plaintiff thus was in the position, of a proprietor who had purchased his own estate. The case, therefore, clearly falls under Section 53 of Act XI of 1859, and his purchase of the estate was 'subject to all its incumbrances existing at the time of the sale.' The defendants having been in adverse possession for more than 12 years before the sale, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »