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.
Baikuntha Nath Sarkar and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Bhusan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.876
1. These are two appeals preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 14th September 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Bishunpur. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a piece of land held by the defendants under a permanent lease granted by the maternal grandmother of the plaintiffs in the year 1855. The lease was granted for a premium and an annual rent of Rs. 9. The money, according to the lease, was required for the purpose of paying off a creditor of the deceased husband of the grandmother of the plaintiffs; and that would, therefore, be a case of legal necessity. Of course, in a case like this, no direct evidence can be given at this length of time as to what actually took place; but the recitals in the deed, if true, show a case of legal necessity. Those recitals are no doubt consistent with the probabilities and the circumstances of the case because there was, in fact, an usufructuary mortgage and it was...
Hara NaraIn Bera Vs. Sridhar Pande and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal974,47Ind.Cas.2
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 against the decision of the learned District Judge of Midnapore, dated the 4th September 1916, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The suit was brought by a Hindu reversioner for a declaration that a kot kobala said to have been executed by one Khetra Mohan Pande in the year 1302 and the solenama decree which was entered into in the suit to enforce the kot kobala were not binding on the reversioner The facts found are all clearly in favour of the plaintiff. What has been urged in this appeal and which was urged also in the Courts below is this. The present plaintiff brought a former suit against the widow of, Khetra Mohan. In that suit, he alleged that the property now sued for was part of the joint family property and that the family being governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law on the death of Khetra Mohan he took the property by survivorship. That suit failed, and the first argument that ha...
The Hon'ble Babu Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury Vs. Raja Jugendra Kis ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal708,47Ind.Cas.5
1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 7 arising out of proceedings under. Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Plaintiff brought the suit for correction of the entry in the Record of Rights in which the names of the plaintiff and defendant No. 7 were entered as the landlords. Plaintiff's case was that there bad been a partition of the estate between the co-sharers, that this particular part of the estate had fallen to his share and that he was the sole landlord of the tenants whose names were recorded in this Record of Rights. No evidence appears to have been given with regard to the partition, but we find from the judgment of the Special Judge that it was admitted by the Pleaders on both sides that there was a partition said to be a private partition, that some lands were still held (sic) and some exclusively. There was however no evidence before the Special Judge to show in detail what lands were so held and how at the time of the partition this land was treated. The Special Judge ...
Jahiral Haque and anr. Vs. Sadar Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.105
1. This appeal must be dismissed, No special appeal lies to this Court having regard to the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tanancy Act. The only question decided in the suit is, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs....
Saiad Sha Maidal Vs. Sridhar Duley
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.157
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 8th June 1916, affirming the decision of the Mansif of Serampur, The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of a piece of agricultural laud and a tank, on the ground that the term under which the defendant held the property had expired. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit so far regards the tank. The question arises only with, reference to the agricultural land; and that limit on a consider anion as to whether the defendant has a right of occupancy in the land. Both the Courts below have found that the defendant has a right of occupancy. The only question we have got to consider is, whether the findings are sufficient to dispose of the case, it is quite clear when one reads the judgment of the Munsif and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge that the period of years for which the defendant and his father have been in possession and cultivating the land ext...
Syam Chand Maiti Vs. Baikuntha Nath Mandal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1003,47Ind.Cas.143
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor against the decision of the learned District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 15th May 1917, reversing the decision of the Officiating Munsif of the same place. The two mortgagees obtained a preliminary mortgage decree against the appellant. The decree of the Court of, first instance was dated the 14th May 1902, and that decree was on appeal confirmed by this Court on the 19th August 1904. Subsequently, on the 5th July 1913, the order absolute was made under the terms of the Transfer of Property Act. The present appellant appeared in that application to make the decree absolute and he is stated to have raised two grounds, namely, of payment and limitation. As the law was then under-stood according to the current of decisions of this Court at that time, there was no period limited to make an order absolute in a foreclosure suit under the terms of the. Transfer of Property Act. Those decisions have subsequently been dissented from by the ...
Mohendra Nath Sow and anr. Vs. Rajani Kanta Sow and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.895
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned District Judge of Burdwan, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought to recover possession of an undivided share in a resumed Chowkidari Chakran land included in a Patni held from the Maharaja of Burdwan. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has held that the Chowkidari Chakran land was included in the Patni and that, therefore, the plaintiffs had a title to an undivided share in it. But he has held that the present plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. That is the only question we have got to consider in this appeal. The learned Judge, I think, is quite right when he states that there are two Articles material for consideration in this case, namely, Articles 142 and 144 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. Article 144 I do not think in the circumstances of the case can apply, because there is a difficulty about showing whether...
Manmatha Nath Mitter and ors. Vs. Anath Bandhu Pal Self and as Executo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.222
1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for Khas possession of certain lands described in four schedules (Ka, Kha, Ga and Gha) to the plaint by ejectment of the defendants therefrom, and for mesne profits.2. The plaintiffs alleged that the lands in suit are comprised within Zamindari Baridhati, Touzi No. 156 of the 24-Pargannas Collectorate. The Zamindari originally belonged to Sir Radha Kant Deb, and his executors on the 22nd Baisakh 1281 granted a Patni of it to his widow Rani Padmamani. In 1879 the Zamindari interest was purchased by Sir Romesh Chandra Mitter, the father of the plaintiffs, and in the same year the Patni interest was purchased by one Nabin Chandra Ghose. The latter granted a Darpatni to his son Kishori Lal Ghose in 1895: on the death of Nabin, all his sons including Kishori became entitled to the Patni, and Kishori alone was the Darpatnidar.3. Sir Romeah Chandra Mitter died in 1899, and the Zemindari vested in his executrix Jagattarini. She instituted a suit for arr...
Bipradas Pal Chowdhary Vs. Azam Ostagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal81(2),(1919)ILR46Cal441
Woodroffe, J.1. This appeal and connected Rule 4783 raise the question whether Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act applies to non-agricultural lands situated in a mofussil municipality. The lands have been found to be homestead lands occupied by tenants engaged in trade or other non-agricultural employment.2. It has been argued that the local extent of operation of the Act extends to all municipalities except Calcutta or other excepted area, which this is not That may be, but the question before us is whether Section 105 applies to the class of tenants which these have been found to be.3. The Legislature contemplated I think that only three classes of tenants should be regarded as holding lands within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act, viz., a tenure-holder who has been held to mean a person collecting rents from raiyats, raiyats holding lands for the purpose of cultivation and under-raiyats holding under them. The question is whether the tenants here come within the classes ment...
Sita Nath Ghose Vs. Thakurdas Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal448,52Ind.Cas.433
Richardson, J.1. The mortgage in this ease was a mortgage which combined the incidents of a mortgage by way of conditional sale with the incidents or one of the incidents of a usufructuary mortgage. It was expressly provided that the mortgagee, the plaintiff in this suit, should have possession of the mortgaged properties in lieu of interest. The mortgage debt was payable at the end of 1307 and it was further expressly provided that in default of payment the mortgagee should be at liberty to foreclose according to law.2. The plaintiff, it is found, was wrongfully kept out of possession by the mortgagors or their then representatives and only secured possession during one year, 1311.3. While he was out of possession, he paid a sum of Rs. 562-13-6 to prevent the mortgaged property from being sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the superior landlord.4. He instituted the suit on the 14th April, 1913 (1st Baisak, 1320), which, unless anything had occurred to give a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »