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.
Jakher Mohamed Mondal and ors. Vs. Khatir Mohamed Shaikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.264
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rungpur, dated the 16th April 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Gaibandha. The suit was brought for ejectment of an under-raiyat after notice to quit. The first Court decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge reversed that decision on one point. The notice to quit had been signed by one of the co-sharer landlords and the learned Judge was of opinion that the evidence did not establish that he signed on behalf of himself and the other landlords. Therefore, he dismissed the suit. Neither side has attempted to support the decision of the learned Judge in this respect. Such a point was not in issue and could riot be in issue in a suit of this nature. The judgment of the learned District Judge must, therefore, be set aside and the case remitted to the Court of Appeal below to have the appeal re-heard and disposed of on the points raised in the Court of first instance. Costs...
Sanchiram De Bahari Vs. Sreemutty Hara Priya Thakurani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.611
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 27th March 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Patiya. The suit was brought for ejectment on the ground that the defendant refused to render the services that he was bound to render under the terms of a lease. The case that the defendant set up was that he was not bound to render any services, and the only question is whether on the terms of the lease the defendant is liable to be ejected on refusal to perform the services he agreed to render to the landlord. In the lease, the rent is stated to be Rs. 2 and the supply on requisition of four persons to do gratuitous labour. The lease then recites, 'You will regularly render these services which your predecessors have rendered in the house of my predecessors and will duly perform those which you are required to do in my house at the time of marriages'. This lease is dated prior to the date of the Bengal Tenancy A...
Jogendra Nath Mitra Vs. Apara Prosad Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.616
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff, who is the landlord, sued for rent the defendant, who was a tenure holder under him. The only question in the appeal as it was in the Courts below is. Is the defendant liable to pay the cesses or did the landlord plaintiff undertake by the contract to bear that liability?' It is a perfectly clear case, because the property was let cut at Rs. 90 per annum including the cesses. The landlord might wisely or unwisely have agreed to that contract and it may be a misfortune that the cesses have been so considerably increased. 'But notwithstanding that the landlord clearly undertook by contract as between himself and the tenure-holder that he would bear the cesses. That being so, the view adopted by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court is correct. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Girish Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Kishore Mohan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1918
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.5
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 7th June 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Howrah. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration of their title and for ejectment of. the defendant after service of notice to quit under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The first Court gave the plaintiffs a decree. The second Court reversed that decision acting on the decision of this Court in the case of Gobinda Chandra Saha v. Dwarka Nath Patita 26 Ind. Cas. 962 : 19 C.W.N. 489 : 20 C.L.J. 455 Of course, the decision in each case must depend on the particular facts proved in that case. One must first look into the facts proved in each case and then apply the law. In this case, the evidence proves that the notice was placed in a registered cover addressed to the defendant at his residence. It was taken to the Post Office, registered there and left in the custody of the Postal authoriti...
Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy and Vs. Sripati Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.119
Richardson, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant in Second Appeal No. 2866 of 1915 is Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy of Dighapatia. There were three categories of defendants in this suit, the Malliks, described as 'principal defendants', the Chatterjees, described as 'colluding defendants', and the Roys, relatives of the plaintiff, described as 'pro forma defendants.'2. The Kumar, who is also the appellant in Appeals Nos. 3239 and 3240 of 1915, is the holder of a five-annas nine-pies share in Mauza Kalikapur, Another share of five annas nine pies is let out in patni; the present patnidars being Sarat Chandra Mukherjee and another (appellants in Appeal No. 3282 of 1915). The former patnidar was a lady named Jarao Kumari. The remaining share of four annas six pies is now held, also in patni, by the sons of Charu Chandra Chatterjee, the appellants in Appeal No. 778 of 1916, who are not to be confused with the Chatterjee defendants.3. The Chatterjee defendants are the tenants under the Kumar and the other ...
Amrita Lal Ghose and anr. and Vs. NaraIn Chandra Chakrabarty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.395
Charles Chitty, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued three brothers Purna Chandra Ghose, Amrita Lal Ghose, and Ganesh Ghosh to recover a sum of Rs. 458 annas 14 and gandas 15 as rent and damages. The suit was filed on 14th April 1913. In 1911 Purna Chandra Ghose had been adjudicated an insolvent in the Alipur District Court and the Nazir had been appointed Receiver of his estate. In the plaint it was stated that the defendant No. 1 was represented by such Receiver. The Receiver was served with a summons in the case, but did not appear at the hearing or file a written statement, nor did defendant No. 1 Purna Chandra Ghose. The Munsif passed a decree against all the defendants with a variation only in the amount of cess claimed. The Munsif found that the documents Exhibits A and J on which the defendants relied were forgeries. All three defendants appealed to the District Judge, who agreed that the documents mentioned were forgeries. He held, however, that as the sanction of the Distric...
Felani Mondalani Vs. Mukunda Lal Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.781
1. We think that the judgment of the learned District Judge cannot be sustained in law, and, therefore, the Rule must be made absolute with costs. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur....
Maharajah Bahadur Sir Prodyot Kumar Tagore Vs. Bhuban Moyee Dasya and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1072(1),46Ind.Cas.1
Fletcher, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the plaintiff against the decisions of the learned Special Judge of Mymensingh, dated the 12th February 1916, affirming the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of the same place. The appeals arise out of certain proceedings instituted under the provisions of Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants have been entered on the record as permanent tenure-holders. The plaintiff objects to the entry so made and brought the suits to amend the record by striking out the word permanent. The question is 'are tenants permanent tenure-holders?' The facts as found are these: First of all, the defendants have been holding under the terms of certain dowl kabuliyats, these dowl kabuliyats going back to the year 1270. The defendants or, rather, the persons through whom they claim were tenants prior to 1270. But when the tenancy was created or what was the period of the tenancy earlier than 1270, is not capable of being ascertained. That...
Harihar Dutta Tewari and ors. Vs. Bhim Sanker Dutta Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.226
John Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against two concurrent judgments of this Court, and both the value of the subject-matter in dispute and the question whether a substantial question of law is involved must be established.2. As regards the first point, the land of which possession by partition was sought was valued at Rs. 5,000. It is now stated to be a sum of Rs. 60,000 for the first time for the purposes of this application. Were it necessary to go into this question, we should have to direct an enquiry upon the matter. In my opinion, it is not necessary to go into this matter as the applicant has not made out that a substantial question of law is involved. In my opinion, the only question of law which arises is under the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, having regard to the finding of fact of both Courts.3. The case set up by the applicant for the non-inclusion in the former suit of the property now sought to be recovered was two...
Srish Chandra Ray and ors. Vs. Jadunath Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.532
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Pabna, dated the 21st February 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Serajganj. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover rent in arrears for the years 1317, 1318 and 1319 B.S. The amount sued for rent and cesses was Rs. 429-0-9. Rs. 104-4-0 was also claimed for damages under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The claim with regard to the rent and cesses for the year 1317 has been, decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and no question has been raised in this appeal with regard to that. Therefore, the judgment appealed against with regard to the arrears of rent for 1317 must stand. The question arises with reference to the years 1318 and 1319. It is common case between both the parties that the rent in this case is payable by five kistt; namely, 10th Assar, 10th Bhadra, 10th Aswin, 25th Agrahayan and 25th Falgun. Now, the damages that have been claimed in this case a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »