Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 45Ind.Cas.317
Richardson, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for the purpose of ejecting the defendant from certain homestead land in his possession. The case for the plaintiffs was that the defendant was a licensee and was not entitled to any notice to quit. The plaintiffs nevertheless alleged that they had served a notice to quit. The defence raised by the defendant was that he was in possession of the land as the plaintiffs' tenant. Both the Courts below have concurred in finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Apparently when the defendant obtained possession, there was some talk of a lease being granted to him but the negotiations come to nothing. The first Court further found that the notice to quit had been served and decreed the suit allowing the defendants two months' time to remove the huts which he had erected. There is nothing to show that these huts were in any sense of the term permanent structures. In the lower App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 47Ind.Cas.853
Richardson, J.1. Paubati Charan Roy Choudhuri died many years ago leaving him surviving, a widow Mangala Debi, and two daughters Lakshmimani and Saraswati. His estate devolved first on his widow and on her death in 1849 on his two daughters jointly. Saraswati died in 1856 leaving a son Paresh, who died in 1873. The plaintiffs, the appellants before us, claim the property in dispute as the reversionary heirs of Parbati Charan when the succession opened on the death of Lakshmimahi in June 1899. The defendants on the other hand set up a title under a conveyance executed by Paresh in their favour on the 11th December 1872. Now at that date Paresh was the reversionary heir of Parbati Charan expectant on the death of Lakshmimani. As such he had a mere spes successionis which he could not validly transfer. That was the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge in the trial Court by whom the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. In the lower Appellate Court, however, the learned District Judge appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 45Ind.Cas.686
1. This is a Rule issued on a Vakil calling on him to show cause why under the provisions of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings should not be taken against him in respect of the evidence given by him in Appeal from Original Decree No. 248 of 1916, or why such other order should not be made with reference to the offences committed by the said Vakil before this Court or brought to its notice in these proceedings, as to this Court may seem fit. The appeal was heard by myself and Mr. Justice Shamsul Huda. It was a Probate case, and agreeing with the decision of the learned District Judge, we found that the Will was a forgery. Sanction to prosecute the appellant in the appeal had been granted by the lower Court and, on the Will or the document said to be the Will, the Vakil's name appeared as one of the attesting witnesses. The Vakil did not give evidence in the Court below, nor did he appear before the Commissioner under the commission issued by the lower Court for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1919Cal677(2),50Ind.Cas.476
Greaves, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit sues to recover from the defendants a new 'Art Caxton' Platen Machine Model 'E' No. 102 or in default a sum of Rs. 2,100 and Rs. 300 as damages and also a sum of Rs. 50, being the balance due under the agreement scheduled to the plaint. The 1st defendants do not appear to defend the suit although they were duly served. By an agreement in writing, dated the 9th August 1913 and made between Leon Saubolle & Co. (therein called the owners) of the one part and the 1st defendants (therein called the hirers) of the other part, it was agreed (inter alia) as follows: (1) the owners agreed to let on hire and the hirer agreed to take from the owners the machinery in suit, (2) the owners acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 300 for the option of purchase thereinafter contained, credit to be given to the hirer for this Bum if the hirer exercised such option, the sum otherwise to belong absolutely to the owners, (3) the birer agreed, so long as he thought tit to c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1919)ILR46Cal103
Richardson, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs complain:(i) that the defendant by raising the north wall of his house has disobeyed a permanent injunction embodied in a decree between the parties dated September 1895;(ii) that the defendant by building a cook-shed has interfered with the plaintiffs' ancient lights,(iii) that the defendant has encroached on a narrow strip of land between the two premises, which belongs to them, by building a privy on the eastern end of it.2. As to (i), the plaintiffs ask for the demolition of the wall so far as it is above the height limited by the permanent injunction. The defence made is that the plaintiffs should not have brought a fresh suit but should have applied for the execution of the decree of 1895 under Order XXI, Rule 32, Clause (1) or Clause (5), and that an application for execution at the date of the suit would have been barred by limitation under Article 181 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act of 1908, corresponding with Article 178 of S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1919Cal634,(1919)ILR46Cal111
Richardson, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to redeem and recover possession of a certain taluq. The facts are as follows: The taluq originally belonged to three brothers Dhaniram, Gurudas and Kailash. In the year 1249 M.E. (1887) the taluq was mortgaged by the three brothers to defendant No. 1 Abidulla. On the 7th May 1890 a person of the name of Akbar Ali purported to purchase the whole taluq in execution of a decree against Dhaniram and Gurudas. On the 6th April 1892 Akbar Ali redeemed the mortgage of Abidulla. Having done so, on the 19th April 1892 he obtained possession of the rand through Court. On the 15th September 1893 he further procured from the superior landlord a settlement of the whole taluq in his favour. The record of rights which was published in the year 1898 contains an entry showing that the taluq was then in exclusive possession of Akbar Ali, under and by virtue of the sale certificate in his name. On the 5th January 1902 Akbar Ali's sons granted a raiyati le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1919Cal903(1),46Ind.Cas.417
Richardson, J.1. The Courts below have differed on the question whether a certain non-occupancy raiyati holding is saleable in execution of a decree for money. In the execution Court the learned Munsif held in favour of the judgment-debtor, the raiyat, and set aside the sale. The decree-holder appealed to the District Judge by whom the Munsif's decree was discharged and the sale confirmed. The appellant before us is, therefore, the judgment-debtor.2. 'In my opinion', says the learned District Judge, 'the decision of the point now raised depends upon the terms of the respondent's pattah, and it is not necessary to enter into any general consideration. The pattah prohibits any kind of transfer without the consent of the landlord, but if any such transfer takes place the landlord has the right of getting khas possession of the land. In view of this provision of the pattah, my opinion is that a transfer, voluntary or involuntary, is not void but is merely voidable at the instance of the la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 45Ind.Cas.783
Richardson, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to redeem and recover possession of a certain Taluk. The facts are as follows: The Taluk originally belonged to three brothers Dhaniram, Gurudas and Kailash. In the year 1249 M.E. (1887) the Taluk was mortgaged by the three brothers to defendant No. 1, Abidulla. On the 7th May 1890 a person of the name of Akbar Ali purported to purchase the whole Taluk in execution of a deoree against Dhaniram and Gurudas. On the 6th April 1892 Akbar, Ali redeemed the mortgage of Abidulla. Having done so, on the 19th April 1892 he obtained possession of the land through Court On the 15th September 1893 he further procured from the superior landlord a settlement of the whole Taluq in his favour. The Record of Bights, which was published in the year 1898, contains an entry showing that the Taluk was then inexclusive possession of Akbar Ali under and by virtue of the sale-oertifioate in his name. On the 5th January 1902 Akbar Ali's sons granted a Baiyati l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 45Ind.Cas.864
Richardson, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs complain:2. (1) that the defendant by raising the north wall of his house has disobeyed a permanent injunction embodied in a decree between the parties, dated September 1895;3. (2) that the defendant by building a cook-shed has interfered with the plaintiffs' ancient lights;4. (3) that the defendant has encroached on a narrow strip of land between the two premises, which belongs to them, by building a privy on the eastern end of it.5. As to (1) the plaintiffs ask for the demolition of the wall so far as it is above the height limited by the permanent injunction. The defence made is that the plaintiffs should not have brought a fresh suit but should have applied for the execution of the decree of 1895 under Order XXI, Rule 32, Clause (1) or Clause (5), and that an application for execution at the date of the suit would have been barrad by limitation under Article 181 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act of 1908, corresponding with Article 17...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1919Cal253(2),(1919)ILR46Cal25,50Ind.Cas.15
Teunon and Newbould, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings.2. It appears that on the 23rd December, 1908, a decree for a sum of Rs. 6,473 was made ex parte against three brothers, Dadhiram, Umesh and Ganesh.3. On the 2nd July, 1912, defendant No 3, Ganesh, applied for an order to set aside the ex parte decree. On the 8th of February, 1913, the Court made an order in these terms: 'Application for rehearing being granted, the ex parte decree is set aside against the applicant Ganesh Chandra Roy.'4. Of the rehearing, no notice was given to defendant judgment-debtors Nos. 1 and 2, but on the 26th September, 1913, after taking the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and defendant No. 3, the Subordinate Judge delivered judgment and made an order as follows: 'The suit is dismissed against defendant No. 3 and is decreed ex parte against defendants 1 and 2 with costs.' Thereafter a decree in the said terms was drawn up.5. The present application was made on the 1st July, 1916, and...
Tag this Judgment!