Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1919Cal935,48Ind.Cas.736
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Rai Bahadur Mani Lal Nahar against the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Chaudhuri. The matter came before the learned Judge by way of a petition under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act by one Mowdad Rahaman, who was a candidate for election as a Municipal Commissioner for Ward No. 14 at the Sixth Municipal Election, and upon that petition it was ordered that the Chairman of the Corporation of Calcutta and Rai Bahadur Mani Lal Nahar, another candidate for election as a Municipal Commissioner for the said ward at the said election should show cause why he should not declare the nomination paper ' of the said Rai Bahadur Mani Lal Nahar invalid. The Rule was made absolute by the learned Judge, who delivered the following judgment: 'This application has been made at a very late stage and I am strongly inclined to hold that it is the result of the decision of this Court in a similar matter which has been before me and the Appellat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 46Ind.Cas.138
Greaves, J.1. This appeal and a cross-objection arise in a land acquisition matter.2. The appeal is by the owner of the land acquired and is an appeal against the amount of Rs. 3,500 per cottah which was allowed him by the Collector and affirmed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge. The appellant claims to be entitled to compensation for the acquisition of the land at the rate of Rs. 4,100 per cottah in lieu of the Rs. 3,500 given him by the award of the Collector.3. The cross-objection is by the Secretary of State and deals with the sum of Rs. 1,900, being at the rate of Rs. 100 a month awarded to the owner of the land for loss of the use thereof for a period of nineteen months, namely, from the time the notification was made until the time the land was actually acquired.4. I will deal with the appeal first.5. The point really lies in a nutshell. It concerns the provisions of Sections 557(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act (III of 1899). That sub-section provides that the market value ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 46Ind.Cas.269
1. The only question arising in this appeal is whether Sunaka, who sold the land in dispute by two sales in 1303 and 1306, had legal necessity for so doing. We are not prepared to accept the law as laid down by the learned District Judge. If his words be taken literally, they lead to the conclusion that a Hindu widow may sell where she has made no attempt; to arrange for the cultivation of the land in her possession; in other words, that she may squander away the property left to her. But on the findings of the learned District Judge, with regard to the circumstances of this woman, there can be no doubt that there was legal necessity for her selling. The only sala which is really now in dispute is the first sale in 1303 of one-fourth of a keyar out of about three and a quarter keyars. It is found that she was left a widow in 1299 with two young children. There were some cattle which had to be sold off for the performance of her husband's sradh. The girl appears to have been married in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 46Ind.Cas.485
Richardson, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in a suit in ejectment. The land in question is situated in Ghat Chota Bankadaha in the district of Bankura and was formerly Ghatwali land. It was resumed by the Government in or about the year 1900 and transferred to the Maharaja of Burdwan as Zemindar or proprietor. The Maharaja then in July 1908 granted a Mokarari lease of the land to the former Ghatwal, Thakur Das Laik, who thus ceased to be a Ghatwal and became an ordinary tenure-holder. Subsequently, but before the expiration of 12 years from the date of the resumption, the tenure was put up for sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the Maharaja against Thakur Das and the plaintiff became the purchaser. The defendants in the suit (Bipradas Charan and others, called the Charans) held the lands as cultivating tenants under Thakur Das both before and after he (teased to be a Ghatwal. Upon their resisting the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain actual posses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 45Ind.Cas.660
Richardson, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought under Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for enhancement of rent, on the ground that the tenants are in possession of land 'proved by measurement to be in excess of the area for which rent has been previously paid'.2. Gouri Pattra's case (Gouri Pattra v. H.R. Reily) 20 C. 579 : 10 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 392. is the ruling authority upon the main principles governing such a claim. It is true that Clauses (5) and (6) have since been added to the section, Clause (5) by the Amending Act, 1898, and Clause (6) by the Amending Act of 1907. But Clause (5) merely corrects a misapprehension which had arisen in regard to a particular passage in the judgment in Gouri Pattra's case (3) [Rajkumar v. Ram Lal 5 C.L.J. 538 at p. 540], and Clause (6) only applies when such a practice has been proved by the landlord or tenant as is mentioned in the clause.3. If regard be had to the terms of the section itself the question in every case, the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 45Ind.Cas.917
1. This appeal must be allowed. The learned Subordinate Judge disagreeing with the Munsif has found that the plaintiff has failed to prove service of notice which was sent through registered post. The proof of the posting was duly given. The registered envelope was produced in Court with an endorsement said to have been made by the postal peon, stating that the addressee refused to accept the letter. On that, the learned Judge purporting to act on a decision of this Court came to the conclusion that the service of the notice was not duly proved. Even assuming that the decision on which the learned Judge has relied says that, it is quite clear that on a point like this, when the appellant has got an earlier decision, of this Court in his favour which has been acted on on more than one occasion, he ought to have an opportunity of proving the service of the notice by producing other evidence. The case must go back to the Court of first instance to be re-heard as regards the actual service...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 76Ind.Cas.353
1. This is a Reference by the Munsif of Chittagong under Rule 1, Order XLVI, Civil Procedure Code, on the question whether Government servants and the persons in Municipal or private service cited as witnesses in civil suits are entitled, as part of their expenses, to the payment of the salary which they would earn in their ordinary employments for the time which they spend in attending Court. As stated by the learned Munsif at the end of his letter the two questions for the decision to this Court are:-first, whether any salary is payable to a Government servant when summoned to attend before a Civil Court as a witness? and the second, whether salary is payable to the servants of other employers when claimed by them?2. As to these questions, we heard the learned Government Pleader and gave him an opportunity to make enquiry into the existing Government riles on the subject and their legal justification. Having made enquiry, the learned Government Pleader is in a position to inform us t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 48Ind.Cas.309
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. We think that the preliminary objection taken to the hearing of the appeal must prevail.2. The appeal arises out of a suit to recover money on a hatchitta executed by two persona, named Upendra Nath Banerjee and another, as managing partners of the 'Calcutta Hosiery' in favour of Ray Chowdhury and brothers. The suit was instituted, however, by Bidhu Bhusan and several other persons as plaintiffs. In the plaint the description of the plaintiffs was--'The proprietors and maliks of the firm styled: Ray Chowdhury brothers,' and then the names of the plaintiffs were mentioned. The Court below gave a decree to the plaintiffs and in the decree the names of Bidhu Bhusan and other persons were described as the plaintiffs without the addition of the words that they were maliks of the firm of Ray Chowdhury Brothers. After the appeal had been filed in this Court, one of the plaintiffs, Dakhina Ranjan, died and his legal representatives were not substituted within the time all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1919Cal1017,46Ind.Cas.333
Richardson, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of a small piece of land to which the plaintiffs claim title to the extent of a 5 annas 6-gundas 2-karas and 2-krantis share. The suit has already occupied a great deal of time both in the trial Court and in the hearing of the appeal in the lower Appellate Court. Before the learned Munsif the trial began on the 3rd November 1914 and was not concluded till the 23rd December 1914, when the suit was dismissed. The practice of trying cases piecemeal has been so often animadverted upon that it is only necessary for us to invite attention to the observations which have been made by this Court in previous cases.2. It appears that before the lower Appellate Court three questions were argued: first, whether the principal defendants are the co-sharers of the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants in respect of the land in suit; secondly, whether the plaintiffs are estopped from maintaining the suit, and thirdly, whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1919Cal189,(1919)ILR46Cal48,50Ind.Cas.51
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is a suit on hundis. Originally there were two defendants. One of them Bissendoyal got leave to defend on the ground that Baijnath the other defendant had no authority to draw any hundi. An application was then made to me on behalf of Baijnath also for leave to defend, and I made an order on his application, that Pannalal Murarkar who is said to have guaranteed acceptance of the four hundis in suit should be added as a party defendant. It was alleged that the defendant had obtained an indemnity from Pannalal Murarkar and the plaintiff, that he was not to be made liable. I made the order following the procedure which had been adopted in the case of Furness Withy Co., Ld., v. Pickering [1908] 2 Ch. 224. The application for addition of a party was made under Order I, Rule 10(2) which corresponds to the English Order XVI, Rule 11. The present Code provides under Section 128 (2)(e) that rules may be framed relating to procedure, where the defendant claims to be entitled...
Tag this Judgment!