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.
Bipradas Pal Chowdhry Vs. Azam Ostagar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1918
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.412
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 Mufassil 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 collection 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 m...
Brindaban Chandra De and anr. Vs. Krishna Mohan De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal902,47Ind.Cas.159
1. In this case the plaintiffs sued for a declaration of title and for khas possession of certain land, of which they alleged they had taken settlement from the maliks, known as the Chhoto Taraf of the 8-annas share of Kismat Bennouri. In the Court of first instance the plaintiffs obtained a decree. In appeal that judgment was reversed and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. At the outset of his judgment the learned Subordinate Judge considered the admissibility in evidence of two exhibits tendered on behalf of the plaintiffs, a map (Exhibit 1) and a chitta (Exhibit 2). They were put in to prove that the land in dispute was allotted on a partition in 1318 to the Zemindars of the Chhoto Taraf of Delduar. The learned Subordinate Judge held that these documents were inadmissible in evidence under the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act. This decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is, in our opinion, clearly erroneous. These documents could not be said to be instruments fal...
Rajani Kanta Ghosh Vs. Lala Rout and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal984(1),47Ind.Cas.298
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Midnapore, dated the 10th August 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the same place. Th9 plaintiff sued for declaration of title and for possession as a transferee of a portion of a non-transferable under-raiyati interest. The Judge held that he got no title, and, therefore, there could not be a declaration of title in this case. It is quite dear that the learned Judge was right. The interest of an under-raiyat is clearly non-transferable. How can the plaintiff by a document say that he has got a transfer of a portion thereof? It may be that the possession of the plaintiff, if he had been in possession, was lawful and not illegal and, if he had his possession disturbed, then he might have sued under the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act. But that is not the case here. In the present case, the facts are these: The landlord is in peaceful possession of this lan...
indra NaraIn Ray Vs. NabIn Chandra Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.847
1. This appeal will stand dismissed. Two grounds have been raised before us, and they are these: First of all, it is said that the present suit is a suit for possession of about 4 bighas of land, the plaintiff claiming through a purchase in execution of a rent decree. The plaintiff's claim was rasisted by certain mortgagee purchasers, who had a mortgage of this property which is a part of a holding and who had purchased in execution of their mortgage-decree. The foundation of the plaintiff's claim is that he is the purchaser in execution of a rent decree. Otherwise, he would only get the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor. It is said that the rent suit is a special suit, namely, a suit brought by a co-sharer landlord under Section 148A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. But the learned Judge has found that the plaintiff had failed to show that he had brought the case within the provisions of Section 148A.2. The second point is also equally against the plaintiff. In a case like th...
Bahuballav Roy Vs. Jogesh Chandra Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal181(2),50Ind.Cas.242
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree holder against the decision of the learned District Judge of Bard wan, dated the 15th January 1917, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Katwa. On the 6th May 1910, a decree for money was passed by consent against the present applicant and another person. The amount decreed was the total amount claimed; but it was provided that, if the money was aid by instalments, the decree-holder would accept payment by the instalments mentioned. It was also provided that, in the event of default being mile in the payment of any of the instalments, the decree holder would be entitled to realize the whole amount. It is not found that any instalment had been paid. Therefore, the original part of the decree by which the suit was decreed for the amount claimed remained in force. The decree holder only agreed to accept payment by instalments if they were made as provided for by the decree; and, moreover, the decree expressly provided that, in default of o...
Baksh Ali Sarkar Add ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Rot Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1053,46Ind.Cas.911
1. A preliminary objection has been raised against the hearing of this appeal. It appears that one of the respondents died some time back and his representatives have not been made parties to the appeal. The learned Pleader, who now appears for the appellants, stated to the Court on the 29th May of this year that he did not wish to proceed against the deceased respondent and the Court ordered 'let the case, therefore, be placed on the list next week' It does not appear that the Court passed an order for dismissal. But such an order should follow, unless we think that this is a case in which we should accede to the prayer of the learned Pleader for the appellant that he now be given an opportunity to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on the record. But having regard to the admitted facts of this case that the learned Pleader for the appellant was informed by the learned Pleader for the respondent of the death of one of the respondents and that the learned Pleade...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Lakhi NaraIn Das and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal1001,46Ind.Cas.899
NOS. 641 AND 964 OF 19161. Appeal No. 641 and Appeal No. 964, in so far as they relate to the lands of Mouzahs Madhabila and Haturia Delbar, must be allowed. The suits relating to these lands were brought under the provisions of Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The time limited for bringing such a suit is by the terms of the section six months from the date of the publication of the Record of Rights. In these cases, the suits were clearly brought beyond that time and the ground on which the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has held that these suits were in time is that, in his view, the plaintiffs were entitled to exclude the two months, during which the notices that were served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were current, from the six months mentioned in Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That view is clearly wrong as the decisions of this Court show. We may refer in particular to the decision of this Court in the case of Secretary of State v. Ga...
Monindra Nath Chowdhuri and anr. Vs. Radha Prosanno Gon and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.19
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 4th July 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought for ejectment. The defendants are the original tenant and the two transferees. No notice to quit was served on the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Judge considered that the covenant restricting alienation in the lease was binding and, therefore, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were trespassers and had no interest. It is not necessary for us to go into that question. The case is a perfectly simple one on the terms of the lease. It was a lease to the defendant No. 1 for the purpose of building a pucca house on the land. The lease provided that, if the landlord desired to resume possession of the land, he could do so provided he paid for the value of the buildings; that means the buildings tha...
Akrurmani Baisnabi Vs. Madhab Chandra Chakrabarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.800
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal must stand dismissed. The suit was a suit for rent against the original lessee of a property to which the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act apply. The liability of the original lessee who has transferred the land is contractual; that liability subsists under the provisions of Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, notwithstanding that the defendant No. 1 has parted with her interest in the leasehold property.2. Then, the next point is this: It is said that the Munsif found that the interest granted by the lease was perpetual. The learned District Judge says it was unnecessary to make such a finding for the decision of the case. I agree with the learned District Judge. Not only it was unnecessary but it was improper after the defendant No. 1 had parted with her interest to adjudicate on what was the nature of the lease granted in the absence of the transferee. All that the learned Judge had to adjudicate on and did adjudicate on was that the ...
Kailash Chandra Kandor Vs. Harihar Patra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal918,47Ind.Cas.928
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Midnapur modifying the dicision of the Munsif of Contai. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage Amongst, the defendants was a minor, namely the defendant No, 1, who appeared in court through a guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem appointed in the Munsi's Court was the Nazir, the Chief Ministerial Officer of that Court, and the Nazir seems to have acted all right. That gentleman, however, went on leave when the appeal was preferred against the judgment of the Munsif and the person who was officiating for him was supposed to have succeeded by virtue of his office to the position of the guardian ad litem of the minor defendant No. 1. Whether that was proper or not, it dues not matter. However, the officiating Nazir of the Munsif's Court instructed a Pleader. to appear on behalf of the minor. But before that--almost a month before--the District Judge had himself appointed an o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »