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.
Radha Charan Chandra and ors. Vs. Maharaja Ranjit Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.187
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for assessment of rent and for recovery of arrears at the rate assessed The lands in suit were originally Chowkidari Chakran and were situated within the ambit of the Patni granted by the plaintiff to the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants on the 12th June 1854. On the 12th September 1899 the lands were resumed under the provisions of the Village Chowkidari Act, 1870, and were transferred to the plaintiff as the Zemindar. The plaintiff thereupon settled the lands with tenants. In 1904 the Putnidars instituted a suit for ejectment on the allegation that they were, under the terms of the Putni lease, entitled to possession of those lands. In that litigation they were successful. The Zamindar now seeks to have rent assessed on those lands and to recover arrears with cesses and interest. It has not been argued before us that the Putnidars are entitled to retain possession of those lands, upon payment to the plaintiff of the exact amo...
Chandi Charan Bandopadhyaya Vs. Kazi Jawadal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.624
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title The land belonged originally, to one Srinath Ganguly. The plaintiff claims title by purchase at a sale held-in execution of a decree in a mortgage executed by Srinath. The first defendant claims title by purchase at a sale held ku execution of a money decree against; the representatives' of Srinath. The defendant; purchased on the 8th August 1907, that is, after the mortgage decree had been made on the 26th March 1 907 and before the mortgage sale took place on the 6th January 1908. On thesis facts' there can be no room for controversy- that the. defendant is bound by the mortgage sale In support of this position reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Debendra Nath Sen y. Mirza Abdul Samed Seroji (2) The view taken by the Subordinate Judge cannot consequently be supported. But the learned Yakil for the respondent has contended with considerable force th...
Nara Narayan Kapali and ors. Vs. Kali Mohan Das Kapali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.47
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Backergunge, dated the 28th July 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Patnakhali. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover certain rents in arrear. The plaintiffs claimed as being entitled to the whole 16-annas rent and they claimed that in these circumstances. The plaintiffs had formerly a two anna odd share in the howla. They brought a suit to recover rent of their own share and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree, they brought the holding to sale and purchased it themselves. They said that they re-settled the property with the defendant and that, therefore, they were entitled to receive and recover the whole rent. The facts found by the learned Subordinate Judge are these: Although the defendant was not entitled to question the validity of the sale in execution of his own holding as he had not objected in the execution proceedings, still when the plaintiffs...
Pran Krishna Pan Vs. Atul Krishna Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1917
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.176
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in 1313 B.S. he lent Rs. 100 to the predecessor of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the latter executed a mortgage bond hypothecating the Jamai land now in suit and some other land. The present defendants sold the Jamai lands to defendant No. 4, who paid the plaintiff Rs. 100 out of the amount due to him. The suit is for the balance due on the bond. After defendant No. 4's purchase the landlord sued the tenants for rent, and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree the jote was put up for sale and bought by defendant No. 5. The lower Appellate Court finds that this purchase was on behalf of the landlord, and that, the landlord afterwards settled the land with defendant No. 6.2. The first Court decreed the plaintiff's suit, but on appeal by defendant No. 6 that decision was reversed so far as it related to the Jamai lands.3. It is to be noted that the mortgage covered about two-thirds of the jote, not the entire area.4. For the plain...
Durga Kanta Sarma Vs. Anto Koch and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.649
Fletcher J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff in a title suit under the provisions of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, asking that the order of the learned District Judge of the Assam Valley Districts as well as the order of the Munsif of Gauhati should be set aside, on the ground that they have improperly exercised the discretion vested in them by law. The suit that had been instituted by the plaintiff was apparently, what is called, set down for hearing. That, I take it, means, appeared in the peremptory list of causes for disposal in the Primary Court on the 19th April 1916. The case without being formally before the Judge was adjourned on the ground that the witnesses were not available that day. That is a common form of application in the Courts of any country and it is not unknown in the Courts of this country. I have seen hundreds of applications like this--perhaps more. The case was accordingly directed not to appear in the list until the 16th May 1916. On the 16th...
Amid (Hamid) Ali and ors. Vs. Abdul Mea Mozumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.616
1. This appeal must fail on the findings of fact made by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. It is quite clear that, on those facts, the plaintiffs' document being registered within the time limited by the Registration Act had priority over the document under which the defendants claimed.2. It is urged also that the interest was penal. No issue was raised on this point and the point does not arise for our decision. In any event, this contract about interest, in the absence of any evidence of extortion or that the interest itself is so high that it amounts to extortion, is a valid contract.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Sarip Hochan Vs. Tilattama Debi, Wife of Janaki Nath Mukhopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.3
Fletcher, J.1. This is a case that admits of no doubt. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of a non-transferable occupancy holding. The defendant was a purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree purporting to be a rent decree obtained under the provisions of Section 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff's purchase had prior to the institution of that rent suit under Section, 148A been recognized by some of the co-sharer-landlords. The co-sharer-landlords who did not recognize the plaintiff then instituted the suit for rent against the original tenant and added as defendants the co-sharer landlords who had recognized the plaintiff. A decree was obtained against the original tenant and the property was purported to be sold in execution of that decree, the defendant being the purchaser. The learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court has held that the sale in execution under the rent decree did not operate so as to pass the holding to the defendant, and th...
Lokenath Dey and on His Death His Heiress and Legal Representative, Sr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.29
Fletcher, J1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, of Mymensingh, dated the 30th April 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Keshargunj. The suit was brought by a person who claimed as the transferee of a jote right for recovery of possession. The case has been decided in the Lower Appellate Court on the question of adverse possession, Having read that judgment I am of opinion that, if the point was open to the learned Judge to decide, the evidence was ample to warrant him to come to the conclusion that he did. But, on the facts that the learned Judge has found it is almost impossible to hold, having regard to the cases decided by this Court with reference to adverse possession of limited interests, that the plaintiff has established the case of adverse possession. Of course, if the plaintiff was entitled to make that case, it had to be raised. The Point made in this appeal is that the learned Subordinate Judge h...
Khudi Bibi Wife of Sheikh Delal Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.26
1. This appeal must be dismissed on the findings of fact made by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. The reasons given by the learned Judge of that Court are conclusive. It is not arguable that a document as this which has been read to us requires registration. The rest of the judgment of the learned Judge is clearly right. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs....
Raj Kumar Nali Vs. Mohesh Chandra Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.580
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Barisal, dated the 19th July 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per annum. The defendant alleged that he was only liable to pay a smaller rent because the tenancy was govern-ed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Therefore, the question in debate has been limited to as to whether this holding is or is not governed by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is not an agricultural holding: that is quite clear. Nobody, has argued that it is so. The question is whether it is a horticultural holding. That is a question of fact to be determined in each particular case from, the facts found by the learned Judge. In the lease in this case the word, althaugh it may mean a garden, may also mean an orchard. That seems to be common ground and the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›