Kolkata Court April 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.
Mahammad Shafikul Huq Chowdhury Vs. Krishna Gobinda Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.428
Teunon, J.1. In execution of a mortgage decree three taluks belonging to the defendant-respondent in this appeal were brought to sale. The sale took place on the 4th May 1901, and was confirmed on the 1st of March 1902.2. On the 8th of March the auction-purchaser transferred the properties by a conveyance executed ostensibly in favour of the present plaintiff-appellant.3. His case is that the purchase was one made by him on his own account, while the defendant-respondent alleges that the purchase was for his benefit and that the plaintiff was his benamidar.4. The question thus arising is the only question of fact we have to determine in this appeal.5. It is not disputed that the purchase-money was in fact provided by the plaintiff, but this, the defendant says, was in pursuance of negotiations initiated before the execution sale and was in part payment to the defendant of a sum of Rs. 6,000 for which the defendant had agreed to sell to the plaintiff two smaller Bhils (Rongia Bhil and R...
Sheikh Tamiz Munshi Alias Tamizud-dIn Munshi Vs. Bisweswari Debyachowd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.862
John Woodroffe, J.1. In my opinion there was in fact a surrender of the whole holding. I agree with Mr. Justice Newbould when he says: 'It may be conceded that relinquishment of the holding means a relinquishment of the whole holding but the whole holding has been surrendered. The part sold to the defendant-appellant was expressly surrendered and the taking of a new settlement of the remainder of the holding operated in law as an implied surrender of the remaining portion.'2. It has been said that this is a new case. It, however, arises as a point of law on the admitted facts, and on the findings of the facts as found by the Subordinate Judge.3. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.Charles Chitty, J.4. I agree.Syed Shamsul Huda, J.5. I also agree....
The Chairman of the Commissioners of Navadwip Municipality Vs. Gour Ch ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.16
John Woodroffe, J.1. I deal firstly with Appeal No. 2 in regard to which it is not necessary to define the meaning of the term 'dwelling house.' It is sufficient to decide on the facts placed before us (and on this I am of the same opinion as Mr. Justice Chatterjee) that holding No. 754 is not a dwelling house or contains a dwelling house.2. This, appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.3. With regard to Appeal No. 3 the lower Appellate Court held that holding No. 754 was not a place exclusively used for public worship. On appeal to the High Court, both Mr. Justice Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Walmsley concurred in this decision and held that the plaintiffs' cross-appeal must be dismissed. It may be a question whether or not there is a right of appeal here. It is not necessary, however, to discuss that question, because on the merits I hold that there is no substance in this appeal.4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.Charles Chitty, J.5. I agree.Syed Shamsul Huda, J.6. I also agree....
Prosanna Deb Roykot Vs. SafuruddIn Ahmed and anr. and KamiruddIn Mahme ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.433
Shamsul Huda, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 108 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the correction of an entry in a khatian, in which the tenancy has been recorded as a tenure the rent of which is liable to enhancement. The plaintiffs who are the tenants wanted to establish that they were ryots and not tenure-holders and that rent was not liable to enhancement. Both Courts have held that the tenancy is not a raiyati holding but a tenure. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the rent is liable to enhancement. The plaintiffs were able to prove that they had paid rent at a uniform rate for over twenty years and thereby had established a presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act that the tenure had been held at the same rate from the time of the Permanent Settlement. The landlord defendant tried to rebut the presumption by showing that the tenants had subsequent to the Permanent Settlement executed kabuliyats whereby the old holding had...
Nagendrabala Dassy Vs. Amrita Lall Chattopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.753
1. The plaintiff is the Putnidar. The defendant in Darputnidar Under the terms of the document under which the defendant Darputnidar holds, Rs. 142 was fixed, to use the language of the document as the annual rent. The meaning, therefore, of this description of annual rent is that this money is primarily payable by the Darputnidar to his superior landlord, the Putnidar, But in conformity with a common arrangement entered into, to provide for cases in which the Putni is sold and the Darputnidar's interest thereby is in danger, it was arranged that of the sum, of Rs. 142 payable to the plaintiffs Rs. 112. should be paid by the Darputnidar to the superior landlord and the balance RS. 30 should be paid by the Darputnidar to his landlord, the Putnidar.2. Now, the defendant expressly covenanted to pay this sum, and that sum has not been paid. The effect of the document is that the defendant must pay Rs. 112 to the plaintiff unless the defendant can produce a receipt from the landlord for tha...
Sristidhar Ghose and ors. Vs. Kedareswar Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.892
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit brought by them to recover rent from the defendants Nos. 1 to 11 as osaf howladars. The plaintiffs claimed as purchasers at a revenue sale of a 9-pie share in a nim-osat taluk, within a resumed khas mahal bearing Touzi No. 856. The revenue sale took place on 20th March 1912 (1318). The tenant defendants pleaded that they were not liable to pay rent direct to the plaintiffs inasmuch as there was in existence a howla created long ago by the outgoing owners of the nim-osat talvk in favour of themselves.2. When the case first came on for hearing before us on 7th March last, we were of opinion that a remand would be necessary for the determination of several questions of fact. On further consideration, however, we came to the conclusion that all we required to know was when the nim-oats taluk was last re-settled. It was argued before us on behalf of the plaintiffsappellants that the howla, if it existed, was annulled by ...
Baikuntha Nath Ghose Vs. Sodananda Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal767,46Ind.Cas.287
Fletcher, J.1. These are two appeals by the plaintiff in two rent suits. The appeals are preferred against the decision of the learned District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 29th June 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Tamluk. The case is a perfectly short one. The rent was sued for in respect of two tenancies in accordance with the Record of Rights finally published under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defence was that the Settlement Officer had re-arranged the holdings and the two holdings were not held as they were originally but they were different holdings, although the same amount of land was comprised in the two holdings. The first question is: 'Can the defendants question the correctness of the rent sued for, the same having been settled in accordance with the provisions of Section 104A to 104F of the Bengal Tenancy Act?' It is said, first of all, that the words used in Section 104 J 'shall be deemed to have been correctly settled' merely give rise to a...
Naja Mia Vs. Abdul Kadar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.878
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 8th April 1916, reversing the decision of the Additional Munsif of the same place. The suit was one brought for recovery of possession of land. The plaintiff claimed that he had got a settlement from the defendant No. 2, who had purchased the Taluk lhat had formerly belonged to one Mobarak Ali and which had been sold for arrears of revenue under the Patni Regulation. The defendant No. 1 said that he was a purchaser of the property from Mobarak Ali's daughter. The appeal is preferred substantially on this ground. It is said that the defendant No. 1 in his written statement failed to deny the allegation made by the plaintiff that the property sued for formed a portion of Mobarak Ali's Taluk and that, therefore, there was a constructive admission and no proof was required of that. There are many answers to this--first of all, proof was required by the Cou...
Tara Kanta Das Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra Sil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.191
1. We are unable to dispose of this appeal upon the Judgment as it now stands. Accepting the finding that the tenancy was not for agricultural purposes, we must know whether the tenancy as described in the plaint was created before or after the Transfer of Property Act was passed. It is true that the Judge says that the holding was created some time before the Transfer of Property Act was passed, but it is argued that this refers to the original tenancy and that the plaintiffs case is that a new tenancy was created by the kabuliat mentioned in the second paragraph of the plaint. This is denied and it must, therefore, be clearly found whether the defendants are holding under the original tenancy of a date prior to the Transfer of Property Act or under a new tenancy created after the Act.2. The contention of the defendant in his written statement was that it was an old tenancy which dates back to the days of the Permanent Settlement, and his argument before us has been that the second pa...
In Re: the Election of Brojo Gopal Goswami as Commissioner of Ward No. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.729
Asutosh Chaudhuri, J.1. This is an application under Section 56 of the Calcutta Municipal Act for setting aside the election of one Brojo Gopal Goswami who was elected Municipal Commissioner at the election held on the 20th March this year in Ward No. 25. The rival candidate was Mr. Tarapada Ghosh. Before dealing with the merits of the application the following facts, which are practically undisputed, ought to be mentioned. In that ward there are 743 voters having 1,573 votes. Eighty-one voters possessing 116 votes are dead. Forty-one voters having 121 votes were absent, and therefore the total number of votes available at that election was l,336 out of which 1139 votes were polled, that is to say, 197 votes only were not recorded. It appears that 608 votes were registered for Brojo Gopal Goswami and 451 for Tarapada Ghosh, giving the former a majority of 237 votes. Brojo Gopal says that he had in addition to the majority 52 more votes in hand which were not recorded but whether that i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »