Kolkata Court November 1918 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.
Monmotha Nath Santra Madak Vs. Raja Peary Mohan Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.180
No. 123 of 19171. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, dated the 2nd November 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Serampore. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain property. The property, which is paid to be homestead land, is in a town. The defendant No. 1 had been a tenant of this land for many years. He held, first of all, under two leases for a period of ten years each. Then he held over and has been holding over on the terms of the expired lease, so far as they are applicable to the tenancy created by the holding over. The view of the appellant is that he is entitled to a notice of six months expiring at the end of a year of tenancy. He has got no such right at all. If the case is governed by the general law, then as regards the homestead the tenancy would be prima facie the tenancy of a monthly tenant capable of being determined with a 15 days notice. If it is not, then the terms of the contract so far as they ar...
Binode Behari Mukherjee Vs. MaizuddIn Sareng
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal77(1),49Ind.Cas.255
Beachcroft, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken to the bearing of this appeal under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, on the ground that the decree or order does not decide a question of the amount of rent annually payable by the tenants. The learned Judge in his judgment stated that the plaintiff claimed that the rent was Rs. 19-3-0 while the defendant alleged that it was Rs, 14. He then remarked that the plaintiff had not made out his case and gave a decree at the admitted rate. The contention of the respondent that the decree or order does not decide the question of the amount of rent annually payable appears to me to be correct. The appeal is, therefore, incompetent and is dismissed with costs....
Sova Chand Bhutoria Vs. Hurry Bux Deora and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1918
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.46
Woodroffe, J.1. The facts are fully set forth in the judgment of Greaves, J., which I need not repeat. It is sufficient to say that there was an award in an arbitration made in a suit and that this award was set aside by the Court. When it was set aside, Counsel for the party now appellant stated at the Bar that having considered the materials before him, he could not resist the order which the plaintiff sought and which was in fact made. A review of this order was then asked for by the appellant on the ground that the application to set aside the award was barred by limitation under Article 158 of the Indian Limitation Act (1908), more than 10 days having elapsed since the date when the award was submitted to the Court. This involves a consideration of the question of the meaning of the words 'submission' and 'Court'.2. In the appeal it is contended on the authority of the decision of Harington, J., in the case reported as Nobin Kally Dabee v. Ambica Churn Banerjee 5 C. W. N. 813, tha...
Shasti Charan Biswas Vs. Nakul Chandra Barua and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.959
Beachcroft, J.1. In this appeal the plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was one for rent. The plaintiff was a purchaser of an estate at an auction sale under Act X( of 1859. He claims that rent should be recovered at Rs. 33 per year. A number of documents have been put in evidence referring to the previous litigation between the parties. For the purposes of the present appeal it is only necessary to refer to one of them, namely, the decree of the year 1903. That was in a suit by the previous proprietor of the estate against these tenants for assessment of rent and in that case the rent was assessed at Rs. 26.12.0. Relying on that decree the Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree for rent at the rate assessed in that decree, On appeal the learned Judge set aside the Munsif's decree and gave the plaintiff a decree for rent at the rate of Rs. 9 per year, that being the rate which was shown in the Record of Rights which was published in the year 1895 and as he was of opinion that there was no...
Ram Prosad Pandey, and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representative ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.974
Beachcroft, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for ejectment. It has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendant got a lease in 1S90 from one Uma Charan Deb, who had got a settlement from Government. The lease was for the term of Uma Charan's own settlement. That settlement expired on the 31st Maroh 1905. Originally the rent, which was Its. 50 a year, was made payable six monthly according to the Bengali Calendar, bat that was subsequently changed and the rent was made payable On the 30th June and 31st December of every year. Uma Charan subsequently transferred his interest to the plaintiff There have been infructuous attempts on the part of the plaintiff before this litigation to eject the defendant. The present litigation began with the service of a notice of 15 days. As the defendant did not vacate the land this suit was brought to eject him. It is necessary to state here that after the termination of his lease in 1905, the defendant did not get another lease...
Jogendra Narayan Ray Vs. Durga Charan Guha Thakurta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal385,(1919)ILR46Cal651
Chatterjea and Newbould, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge of Barisal dismissing an application for leave to sue as a pauper should not be set aside.2. The petitioner applied in the Court below for leave to sue in forma pauperis for recovery of certain debattar property. The learned Subordinate Judge found that he was a pauper, but dismissed the application on the ground that upon the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the suit was barred by limitation. The Court below says that the evidence adduced by the petitioner shows that since 1286 B.S. neither the petitioner nor his father has ever been in possession of the property. No such statement was made by the plaintiff himself either in his plaint or in his examination before the Court, and the learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, has evidently come to that conclusion upon certain statements made by some witnesses (on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner) who had been...
Juadulla and ors. Vs. Sheikh Bakshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal416,49Ind.Cas.519
Beachcroft, J.1. This is an appeal in a rent suit against a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Sylhet. The rent law applicable in that District is Act VIII of 1569. The suit was dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground that there was a defeat of parties.2. A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that under Section 102 of Act VIII of 1869 no appeal lies, as the amount claimed does not exceed Rs. 100 and us none of the other questions mentioned in that section was raised in the suit. At one time a view was taken that the word 'District Judge' in the section did not include an 'Additional District Judge.' That question was set at rest by the decision in the case of Brojo Misser v. Ahladee Misrain 21 W.R. 320 : 13 B.L.R. 376 (F.B.), in which it was held that an 'Additional District Judge' does come within the meaning of the section.3. That being the state of facts, the preliminary objection must prevail and the appeal is according...
Hari Charan Dutta and ors. Vs. Nibaran Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal449,50Ind.Cas.37
Beachcroft, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants. The plaintiffs, who are the superior landlords, are admittedly tenure-holders. Under them was one Biswa Nath Das, who had a holding of 18 cattas. The defendants were under-raiyats under Biswa Nath Das. They claimed title by what purported to be a permanent lease given to them in 1883. After, Biswa Nath's death a suit for arrears of rent was brought against his daughters by the plaintiffs, who got a rent-decree and, in execution of that decree purchased the holding. This was on the 27th July 1907. The plaintiffs alleged that when they went to take possession they were resisted. They subsequently served a notice under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act on the defendants and in due course brought a suit for ejectment against them. Both the Courts below decreed the plaintiffs' suit. When the matter went on appeal to the learned District Judge, he found that while the defendants had at one time set up a plea that their immediate landlo...
Harihar Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal156(1),52Ind.Cas.595
1. This is a Rule upon the District Magistrate of Jalpaiguri to show cause why the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner under Section 384 of the Penal Code, in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Jalpaiguri, should not be quashed or, in the alternative, why the case should not be transferred to some other District for trial.2. The petitioner is a Police Officer. In June 1918 the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri, by a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, made certain charges of extortion against the petitioned who had been- suspended. The letter on receipt in the Deputy Commissioner's Office appears to have been placed before Mr. A. Majid, Deputy Magistrate, who issued a warrant for the petitioner's arrest and thereby instituted the proceedings against the petitioner to which the Rule relates.3. Mr. Majid is specially empowered to take cognizance of offences under Section 190, Sub-section (1), Clauses (a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first poi...
Kumud Behary Pal Vs. Hari Charan Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal717,53Ind.Cas.814
Newbould and Panton, JJ.1. This is a reference under Rule 1, Order XLVI of the Civil Procedure Code by the Munsif of the 2nd Court at Alipore vested with Small Cause Court powers. The point referred is Whether a Provincial Small Cause Court has the power to attach moveables before judgment.2. The provision of the Code relating to attachment before judgment is Rule 5, Order XXXVIII. Order L of the first schedule of the Code provides that certain portions of that schedule shall not extend to Courts, constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, or to Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court under that Act. It is quite clear that there is nothing in Order L to prevent Small Cause Courts exercising powers of attachment before judgment.3. The only other provision in the Code that requires to be considered is Section 7 of the body of the Code. Under that section, Sections 94 and 95, so far as they relate to injunctions and interlocutory orders, do not extend...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »