Kolkata Court June 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.
Rakhal Chandra De Vs. Chairman of the Suri Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.306
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Birbhum, dated the 5th January 1917, affirming the decision of the Mnnsif of Sari. The case is this. The defendant Municipality served notices on the plaintiff under Sections 202 and 204 of the Bengal Municipal, Act requiring him to remove an obstruction or encroachment on the street and to remove a projection that had been placed against or in front of his house. The plaintiff thereupon brought the present suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant Municipality from acting on the statutory notices. Assuming that such a suit lies, I think the facts found in this case are conclusive. What is found is this: The encroachment has been removed;, under Section 202 and it ho longer exists and, therefore, it no longer existing, there can be no ground at present on which the Municipality can proceed further in the notice under Section 202 and no question as to whether the plaintiff is e...
Biprodas Pal Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal598,47Ind.Cas.765
N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for possession of 289 biffhas and 7 cottas of land situated in Mouza Phulia appertaining to Taraf Santipur.2. It appears that Mouza Phulia and 37 other Mouzas constituting Taraf Santipur originally belonged to the Maharaja of Nadia. Before the Permanent Settlement the Raja's successor declined to take settlement of the Taraf and it was, accordingly, let out in temporary ijara by the Government to different persons from 'time to time. Maharaja Tej Chandra Bahadur ol Burdwan purchased the right of the last ijaradar. Ultimately it was permanently settled with the Maharaja about the year 1800 and the latter granted a Patni of the Taraf to one Ramesh Chandra Mukerjee in 1807. The Zemindari interest passed to certain persons who may be conveniently referred to as the Tagores. The Zemindar in execution of three decrees for arrears of rent against the Patnidar put up the Patni to sale and it- was purchased by the plaintiff on the 2nd ...
Abdul Wazed and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal914,47Ind.Cas.876
Richardson, J.1. The petitioners before us have been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, and one of them has also been fined, under Sections 186, 323 and 353, Indian Penal Code, or one or more of these sections. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate to show cause why the convictions and sentences should not be set aside on the ground that the warrant was illegal, in that it was not shown that Ayesha Khatun had an opportunity of obeying the decree and wilfully failed to obey it. The only point, therefore, which has been argued before us is whether Ayesha Khatun, the lady mentioned in the Rule, had an opportunity or a sufficient opportunity to obey the decree. The decree was a decree obtained against her by her husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It was made on the 3rd March 1917. The warrant in question was not issued till the 15th September 1917. The decree directed that the lady should return to her husband within three months of its date. It is...
Lakhimani Dassi Vs. Dwijendra Nath Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal249
Chaudhuri, J.1. This is an application, under Rule 67, Chapter 38 of our Rules, by Messrs. G.C. Chunder & Co., a very well-known firm of attorneys of this Court.2. One Latu Lal Mullick was a client of that, firm which conducted a suit on his behalf, being suit No. 56 of 1912. Latu Lal died on the 9th February 1913. The bill of costs was taxed on the 4th September 1913. Mr. B.K. Bose was taken in as a partner of that firm on the 1st January 1914. Mr. G.C. Chunder, the senior member of that firm, died on 3rd July 1914; his son Babu Raj Chunder Chunder, who was also a partner, died on the 5th July 1915; and Babu Lakhi Narain Khetri, another partner of the firm, died on the 5th August 1917.3. The summons for this application was taken out on the 10th May 1918 for hearing on the 15th May 1918. The present members of the firm are Mr. B.K. Bose and two others who were not originally members of that firm. When the application came before me the representatives of Latu Lal appeared and conteste...
Satis Chandra Bandopadhya and ors. Vs. Natabar Dome
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.362
Fletcher, J.1. This case comes up again on appeal to this Court from the final decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 2nd September 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of 'Bishnupur. The plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration of his dakbardari simandari chakran right to the lands mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and also for recovery of - possession thereof. The case was fought in this Court on more than one occasion. The plaint was filed in March 1909 and we are now in 1918, and it is unfortunate that litigation of this nature has dragged on for so many years and has not been finally decided yet. The case is this: The Government was persuaded in the year 1894 to appoint a Commissioner under the Chowkidari Chakran Act for the purpose of resuming the land in question on the statement that they were chowkidari chakran lands. These lands were resumed and transferred to the Maharaja of Burdwan, who transferred them to the putnidars, who settled the...
Srimati Lakhimoni Dassi Vs. Dwijendra Nath Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal345(2),51Ind.Cas.941
1. This is an application under Rule 67, Chapter XXXVIII of our Rules, by Messrs. G.C. Chunder and Co., a very well-known firm of Attorneys of this Court.2. One Lattulal Mullick was a client of that firm which conducted a suit on his behalf, being Suit No. 56 of 1912. Lattulal died on the 9th February 1913. The bill of costs was taxed on the 4th September 1913. It was after that that Mr. B.K. Bose was taken in as a partner in that firm on 1st January 1914. Mr. G.C. Chunder, the senior member of that firm, died on 3rd July 1914, his son Babu Raj Chunder Chunder, who was also a partner, died on 5th July 1915, and Babu Lakhi Narain Khetri, another partner of the firm, died on 5th August 1917.3. The summons for this application was taken out on 10th May 1918 for hearing on 15th May 1918. The present members of the firm are Mr. B.K. Bose and two others, who were not originally members of that firm. When the application came before me, the representatives of Lattulal appeared and contested t...
Aminuddi Dafadar and Vs. Ananda Chandra Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.924
No. 1495 of 19161. This is an appeal preferred by the defendant against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tipperah affirming the decision of the Munsif of Chandpore. The suit was brought for ejectment under the provisions of Section 49(a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It was brought by a Raiyat to recover possession against the under-Raiyat on the expiration of the term of the lease granted. The contract of tenancy was evidenced by a document Galled a Kabuliat, which was executed by the tenant and accepted by the Raiyat landlord. Under the terms of the Kabuliat the property was taken by the tenant for a period of nine years. There was a contract for renewal, under which the parties undertook that a further term of nine years would be granted to the defendant on the same terms as the original term. The terms expired in April 1911. This suit was not brought until May 1914. So a substantial part of the contract for renewal has been performed. Unless the covenant for renewal in...
Lakshmi Kanta De Vs. the Chairman of the Municipal Commissioner of the ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.169
Charles Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff arising out of a suit brought by him against the Chairman of the Naihati Municipality and two persons who were elected as Commissioners for the ward for which the plaintiff considered himself a candidate. The election was to be held on 9th October 1915. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were duly nominated as candidates. We may assume that the nomination of the plaintiff was also in order but we find nothing as to that on the records. The Chairman was in doubt whether the plaintiff was qualified having regard to Section 57 of the Bengal Municipal Act. He referred it on 17th September 1915 to the Magistrate, presumably under Rule 29 of the Election Rules; and the Magistrate on the same day ruled that the plaintiff was not qualified to be eleoted as a Commissioner. An appeal to the Commissioner of the Division by the plaintiff was, we understand, unsuccessful. On 2lst December 1915 the plaintiff filed this suit praying for a declaration, firs...
Abhoy Sankar Mozumdar and ors. Vs. Rajani Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal611,47Ind.Cas.359
Teunon, J.1. These 18 appeals arise out of as many proceedings taken on the application of the landlord' for the settlement of fair rents, in other words, for the enhancement of rent, under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Under Section 105-A the tenants contended that they held at fixed rents. In 16 oases the tenants succeeded in both Courts below, and in two they succeeded in the 2nd Court. Hence these 18 appeals by the landlord.2. In all the oases it has been established that the tenants and their predecessors have held at a rent which has not been changed during the 20 years immediately preceding suit and they are, therefore, prima facie entitled to the benefit of the presumption arising under seotion 50, Sub-section (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In all the oases but one (Appeal No. 2181) Kabuliyats were executed by the tenants in the years 1295, 1296, 1297, or 1299. In eleven oases (Appeals, Nos. 218C, 2184-88, 2190-92, 2194, 2196), these Kabuliyats show that the holdings a...
Amar Chandra and ors. Vs. Srimati Noor Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.777
1. The only question raised in this appeal is this: whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the actual cultivators who are the defendants Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15. It is found that the alleged taluqdars and the durtaluqtlars have no interest in the property. The actual cultivators claim possession under an alleged settlement from the alleged durtaluqdars. The decisions of this Court show that the actual cultivator who honestly and bona fide believed that the person who settled him on the land had a right to settle him may, after a period' of year? acquire a right in the land as a raiyat. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court in the present case has made no finding as to whether these cultivators defendants bona fide believed that the alleged durtaluqdars had the right to settle them on the land of which they took settlement. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is accordingly set aside as regards the cultivating defendants, namely, the defendants Nos. 2, 3, 5,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »