Kolkata Court August 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.
Surendra Mohan Sinha Vs. Rjendra Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.435
1. This is an appeal by the third defendant in a suit for declaration of title to resumed Chowkidari Chakran lands and for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, and his decree has been confirmed by the District Judge. The lands are admittedly situated in Mouza Belsar within the Zemindari of the Maharaja of Burdwan. They were resumed by the Government under the provisions of the Village Chowkidari Act, 1870, and were transferred to the Maharaja on the 23rd July 1900. On the 16th July 1911 the plaintiffs obtained a permanent lease of the lands from the Zemindari but when they attempted to take possession, they were resisted by the contesting defendants who claimed the lands as included in a Patni Taluk held by them under the Maharaja. The plaintiffs thereupon instituted this suit on the 27th January 1912 for ejectment of the defendants as trespassers. The District Judge has held, in concurrence with the Subordinate Judge, that as the Patnidars ...
Bipradas Pal Choudhury and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1917
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.49
1. We see no reason to differ from Mr. Justice Teunon in the view that he has taken of the rights of the parties in these cases. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs....
Kumar Chandra Kishore Roy Chowdhury Vs. Basat Ali Chowdhury and Nawab ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.763
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent arising from a difference of opinion between Chaterjea, J., and Mullick, J.2. The facts are as follows:The landlord of the judgment-debtor obtained a decree for rent against him, and in execution thereof, the Judgment-debtor's interest in a Patni tenure was sold. His interest was a 2/3rds share. At the sale the debtor's interest was bought for Rs. 2,755 by Kumar Chandra Kishore Roy Chowdhury, who was the owner of the remaining l/3rd share. The judgment-debtor applied under Order XXI, Rule 90, to have the sale set aside: the Munsif in the Court of first instance set aside the sale on the ground that he was not satisfied that the sale proclamation was duly published, and on the further ground that the price was deliberately understated in the proclamation and that the disputed property was a valuable one and might be worth Rs. 6,000, as alleged by the judgment-debtor.3. The auction-purchaser appealed from...
Lakhi Charan Saha and ors. Vs. Hamid Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1917
Reported in: 44Ind.Cas.543
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff appellant, who is the purchaser of an entire estate under Act XI of 1859, to eject the defendants. The, defendants and their predecessors in-interest, it is found, had been holding the lands at any rate from. 1838 as Raiyats, and had acquired a right of occupancy in the lands in suit, but the defendant Chunnu Miah and another in 1881 executed a daimi kaimi chirasthai (permanent Raiyati Kabuliyat). The Courts below have held that the interest of the defendants was protected under Section 37, of Act XL of 1859, and the plaintiff was not, therefore, entitled to khas possession, but was entitled to fair and equitable rent for the lands. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court.2. Under Section 37 of Act XI of 1859, the purchaser at a revenue sale is not entitled to eject any Raiyat having a right of occupancy at a fixed rent or at a rent assessable according to fixed rules under the laws in tores. On the facts stated, the defendants' int...
Satish Ranjan Das Vs. Mercantile Bank of India, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1917
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.322
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Mr. S.R. Das, against the judgment of Chaudhuri, J., whereby he held that the plaintiff Bank was entitled to a personal decree against the 1st and 2nd defendants.2. It was contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a personal decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as the conditions precedent entitling them to ask for such a decree had not been fulfilled : and the terms of the decrees, dated 8th February 1915 and 28th February 1916, had not been carried out.3. The facts were as follows:H. Guznavi was indebted to the Allahabad Bank and his indebtedness was secured by mortgage of certain properties.4. He was also indebted to the plaintiff Bank. On, the, 1st August 1913, A. H. Guzuavi executed a mortgage to the plaintiff Bank to secure the floating balance' This mortgage was with respect to the same properties as were covered by the mortgage held by the Allahabad Bank and was subject t...
Gadadhar Ghosh Vs. Midnapur Zemindary Company Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.742
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The ease for the plaintiffs is that the disputed land constituted the non-transferable holding of Arun Chandra Biswas and Hriday Nath Biswas and that the present defendants are in occupation on allegation of a purchase which has conferred upon them no valid title as against the plaintiffs. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit: on appeal that decision has been reversed by the Subordinate Judge.2. The question in controversy between the parties is as to the effect of a deposit made by the 2nd defendant under Section 310 A. of the Code of 1862, which was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiffs. On the 25th April 1903 the landlord in execution of a decree for arrears of rent against the recorded tenant purchased this property. On the 25th May 1903 the 2nd defendant made a deposit under Section 310A of the Code of 1882, with a view to the cancellation of the sale. He ...
In Re: A.F.C. Seehase
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.196
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by the Official Assignee in the insolvency of one A.F.C. Seehase under Section 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act for an enquiry to be held as to whether the sale to Mackertich John of the business property, furniture, stock and effects of the insolvent in the business known as the Continental Hotel is fraudulent and void as against the Official Assignee and it also asks that orders be passed by the Court as the result of such enquiry.2. Before I come to deal with the facts of the case, there are three matters in connection with the insolvency jurisdiction to which I think I should refer. When this matter came before me, an objection was taken that it was a matter that could not be dealt with under Section 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and I was referred in support of it to the judgment of Mr. Justice Chitty in In re J.M. Lucas 28 Ind. Cas. 469 : 42 C. 109 at pp. 113, 114, where Mr. Justice Chitty has expressed his opinion that ma...
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Digambar Nanda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.939
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council from the decree in a suit instituted by the respondents to obtain a lease from Government in respect of an area of 18,510 bighas of land. Tha facts material for the determination of the questions raised before us are not in controversy. On the 13th May 1872 a settlement was made with Bholanath Nanda (predecessor of the plaintiffs), which was to continue from 1278 till the next measurement and settlement of rent. The settlement proceedings were completed about the year 1878, and on the 5th August 1878 a patta was granted to Bholantah Nanda for a term of (22) twenty-two years from 1285 to 130:) at a progressive rate of rent. This lease contained a covenant in the following terms:If you agree to pay the enhanced rent which will be fixed at the time of resettlement in future, the Government will h2. The evidence shows'that when the term of the leass came to an end in the year 1306 (1899-1900), settlement operations were st...
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Sibaprosad Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.983
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council from the decree in a suit instituted by the respondent to obtain a lease from Government in respect of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint. The facts material for the investigation of the rights of the parties are not in dispute at this stage. On the 5th August 1878 a settlement was made with one Radhika Prasatma Chandra (the predecessor of the plaintiff) for a term of 22 years on a progressive rate of rent from 1285 to 1306.The kdbuliyat executed by the grantee contained a covenant to the following effect:If I agree to the enhanced rent to be fixed at the time of the next Settlement in future, the Government shall have the power to settle the lands with me, or if I do not agree, then with others.2. When the term of the lease expired in the year 1900, the Settlement operations were still in progress, and annual leases, renewed from year to year, were granted to the successor-in-interest of the original le...
Padma Lochan Patar Vs. Girish Chandra Kit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1917
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal168
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,954-4. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 976-6. Upon appeal, the District Judge has modified that decree and we have before us an appeal by the defendant as also a memorandum of cross-objection by the plaintiff. The appeal and the cross-objection raise two questions upon which the Courts below have taken divergent views. The first question relates to a sum of Rs. 168-8-6; with regard to this, the defendant contends that the claim is barred by limitation. The second question relates to a sum of Rs. 2,000; with regard to this, the Court of first instance dismissed the suit, but the District Judge has granted the plaintiff leave to abandon his claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908.2. As regards the first point, there can be no doubt that the sum really accrued due more than three years prior to the institu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »