Kolkata Court March 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.
Radhamohan Rai and ors. Vs. Naimuddi Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.845
1. This Rule was issued at the instance of some of the 1st party to a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The leader of this branch of the 1st party appears to be Baikuntha Chandra Boy. The Rule was issued on two grounds (1): that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to declare plots I and J to be in possession of Sadar Ali's tenants, they being no parties to the proceeding and having made no application to be made parties, and (2) that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to declare plots E and F to be in the possession of Baser Pramanik and bis tenants, those persons being parties to the proceedings only for the purpose of Section 145 (5). The proceedings were commenced on 1st September 1917 owing to a dispute between, and a likelihood of a breach of the peace by, the present petitioners (part of the 1st party) and Naimuddi Molla, the 2nd party. It appears from the order-sheet that on 8th October 1917 two sets of persons, one claiming to be tenants of Naimuddi Molla an...
Gopal Mondal Vs. Tapai Sankhari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal43
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Faridpur, dated the 23rd December 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Bhanga. Mr. Sen who appears in support of the appeal considers that the case is one of importance and difficulty. Of course, in a matter dealing with a question coming under the Bengal Tenancy Act, on account of Mr. Sen's great knowledge in this matter, one always pays great attention to what he says. But having listened to his argument, it seems to me that the case is one of great simplicity. The question is 'can an under raiyat by usage or custom obtain a right of occupancy'? Mr. Sen says he can not. The Legislature of the country have said that he can. Therefore, one has got to decide whether the Indian Legislature, when they gave the second illustration of Section 183 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which expressly shows that an under-raiyat may by usage or custom obtain a right of occupancy, gave an il...
Taimuddi Bepari and anr. Vs. Sheikh Lakpat Bepari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1005,45Ind.Cas.212
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Dacca, dated 29th June 1915, refusing an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale of certain properties of the appellants in execution of a decree obtained against them by the respondents. The contention of the appellants is that property worth over Rs. 17,000 has been bought by the decree-holder respondent for Rs. 4,950 and that this inadequacy of price is due to material irregularity in conducting the sale. Before the lower Court it was sought to prove that there had been no publication of the sale proclamation but this point was not pressed before us. As regards the other point that was taken in the lower Court it is conceded by the learned Pleader for the respondent that the omission of the Court to specify the hour of sale, when the sale was adjourned, amounted to an irregularity, but he supports the decision on the ground that the price was not inad...
The Port Canning and Land Improvement Co., Limited Vs. Nayan Chandra P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1044,45Ind.Cas.234
No. 3325 of 1915.Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of the Twenty-four Perganahs, dated the 2nd December 1915, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Basirhat. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Section 46 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The questions raised in the appeal are as follows : Section 46 of the Bengal Tenancy Act mentions a suit for ejectment on the ground of refusal to agree to enhancement of rent. It states that such a suit shall not be instituted against a non-occupancy raiyat unless the landlord has tendered to the raiyat an agreement to pay the enhanced rent and the ratyat has within three months before the institution of the suit refused to execute the agreement. There seems to be a certain amount of confusion as to what is meant by that section. It is quite obvious that the word 'agreement' mentioned in the first subsection of Section 46 cannot be strictly construed,...
Gopal Mandal Vs. Tapai Sankhari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal691,45Ind.Cas.545
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Faridpore, dated the 23rd December 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Bhanga. Mr. Sen who appears in support of the appeal considers that the case is one of importance and difficulty. Of course, in a matter dealing with a question coming under the Bengal Tenancy Act, on account of Mr. Sen's great knowledge in this matter, one always pays great attention to what he says. But having listened to his arguments, it seems to me that the case is one of great simplicity. The question is, 'can an under-raiyat by usage or custom obtain a right of occupancy?' Mr. Sen says he cannot. The Legislature of the country have said that he can. Therefore, one has got to decide, whether the Indian Legislature, when they gave the second illustration of Section 183 of the Bengal Tenancy Act which expressly shows that an under-raiyat may by usage or custom obtain a right of occupancy, gave an ...
Brojonath Sarma Vs. Maheswar Gahani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.100
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the Assam Valley-Districts, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Sibsagar. The suit was brought to recover land and for mesne profits. The facts are these: Originally a person named Kanakeswar had a periodic settlement of the property. He got into difficulties and made over the land to three persons, namely, the plaintiff, the defendant Moheswar and another named Chakari. Those persons then approached the Government and new Pattahs were granted. The plaintiff now sues to recover the land in his Pattah. When the land came to be partitioned, the Sub-Deputy Collector seems to have made a mistake and put the defendants in possession of a portion of the land covered by the plaintiff's Pattah, and the present suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover that portion of the land covered by his Pattah which the defendants were improperly put into possession of. The learned Judge of the...
Latifan Mian Vs. Musammat Moorti Janana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.366
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the Assam Valley Districts, dated the 3rd January 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Dabrugarh. The plaintiff instituted the suit under the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act against the sole defendant, her late husband, claiming, first of all, for a declaration as to her marriage with the defendant and, secondly, for a declaration as to the legitimacy of four children whom she had given birth to or whom; she alleged to have given birth to and of whom she alleged that the defendant war the father, The learned Judge-of the lower Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff was divorced 20 or 21 years ago, by the defendant and has, therefore, refused to make a declaration as to the marriage of the plaintiff. As regards the declaration of the legitimacy of the children, he has found that the eldest daughter who is not a party to these proceedings was born ...
Chandra Kumar Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Aswini Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.250
Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 to 3, really on behalf of themselves and defendants Nos. 4 to 11 who are their co-sharers. Aswini Kumar Das, plaintiff No. 1, brought the suit to set aside an ex parte decree passed against him and Kashish Chandra Das, defendant No. 12, on the ground of fraud. That decree was passed in Rent Suit No. 1502 of 1910. Aswini Kumar Das alleged that there was fraud, not only because he was not served with summons, but also because the suit against him was bad ab initio on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant subsisting between him and defendants Nos. 1 to 11. Defendant No. 12, Kashisb Chandra Das, was made a pro forma defendant to the present suit and in his written statement he alleged that the return of service against him also was fraudulent and collusive. At the same time, while raising no objection to relief being granted to Aswini Kumar Das, he did not ask for any relief for himself. On the other hand he obj...
Dharani Kanta Lahiri Chowdhuri Vs. Ismail Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.221
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Special Judge of Mymensingh, dated the 16th August 1915, dismissing an appeal from the judgment of the learned Assistant Settlement Officer of the same place. The only question involved in the appeal is whether the defendants, the tenants, are entitled to the presumption mentioned in Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is common ground that the tenants are holding under the terms of a document in writing and the question is whether that document was the origin of the tenancy or whether it was merely confirmatory of a preexisting tenancy. I have come to the conolu-sion that the document was not confirmatory nor was the origin of the tenancy under which the defendants hold. The term granted was a term of five years and it was provided by the document that at the expira-tion of that term, the landlord would be entitled to mike a settlement of the land with whom he pleased and it seems to me quite impossible on those te...
Mohananda Dutta Chowdhury Vs. Baikantha Nath Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.872
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 2 against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Sylhet, affirming the decision of the Mnnsif of Habignnge. The suit was brought to recover possession of an one-anna share as against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on a declaration of title by purchase. The admitted facts are these. The original owner of the property was one Gopinath. He had three sons; the defendant No. 1, the father of the defendant No. 2 and one Chai Mranath. Chandranath died leaving and widow, Tripura Sundari, a daughter who married one Protab and the son of that daughter named Jnanendra. The title in this case is made in this way. On the 19th July 1901 Tripura Sundari executed a document (Exhibit 4) in favour of Jnanendra who was then a minor. The document, after the ordinary recital that she was in want, stated as follows: 'if I make you absolute owner of an one-anna share out of my share pf the properties mentioned below by transfering the same to you by a d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »