Kolkata Court August 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.
Upendra Kishore Mondal and anr. Vs. Nobokishore Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal746,48Ind.Cas.993
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that certain transactions entered into by a Hindu widow were not binding upon the reversioners, and for recovery of possession of the properties in suit under the following circumstances.2. One Raghunath had three sons, Thakur Das Madhu Sudan and Hari Narain, each of whom got 1/3d of the estate left by Raghunath. Hari Narain died leaving his widow Bamakali and his 1/3rd share devolved on her. Then Thakur Das died: his 1/3rd share passed to his brother Madhusudan, who thus got 2/3rds share. Then Madhusudan died on the 13th August 1867, leaving his widow Prosanna Kumari, who thus in herited 2/3rds share of the properties. After the death of Madhusudan, Prosanna Kumari settled all the properties left by him excepting the Thakurbati, Kacharibati, dwelling house, tank and garden at the back of the house and a Taluk No. 395 in permanent lease with her brother's son Khetra Mohan Samanta on the 17th September 1869. Bamakali, widow of Hari N...
Rajani Manna Bagdi, and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representativ ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.699
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs landlords for apportionment of rent. It appears that under these plaintiffs the defendants took settlement of some 24 1/4 bighas of land as cultivating raiyats. The lease then executed was one for 9 years from 1286 to 1294. But though the lease expired in 1294, the tenancy of the defendants has since continued. In the year 1906 the landlords brought a suit against the defendants for arrears of rent for the period 1309 to 1312. In that suit the tenant defendants contended that inasmuch as their, landlords had wrongfully dispossessed them of a substantial portion of their holding, namely, plots Nos. 4 and 5 measuring 51/4 bighas, the landlords were not entitled to any portion of the rent until such time as he replaced the tenants in possession of the two plots referred to. In that suit it was decided that the plaintiff-landlords had, in the year 1309, in collusion with a subsequent lessee of the name of Samiraddi, wrongfully d...
Ramcharan Bairagi and anr. Vs. Udal Bairagi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.515
1. The appellants before us were the plaintiffs in a suit brought for possession of a certain parcel of land on establishment of title. Their case was that one Lal Chand Mandal was a raiyat in respect of a holding of some 21 bighas held at a fixed rate of rent. Lal Chand, it is said, was succeeded by three persons each having 1/3 rd share in the holding. One of these three persons and the transferee or sub lessee of the other two sublet, it is said, 7 1/2 bighas to defendants Nos. 10 and 11 one Rai Charan and Sonatan, who executed in favour of the landlords what has been found to be a kabuliyat purporting to create a permanent tenancy. Against them it is said a decree for rent was obtained by their landlords, and in execution of that rent decree the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 became the purchasers of the under tenancy. The sale was in 1909 and the plaintiffs after their purchase, we are informed, obtained symbolical possession through the Court. Then followed proceedings under Section 145...
Habibar Rahman Chowdhury Vs. Altaf Ali Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal17,(1919)ILR46Cal259
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Greaves J. The plaintiff Habibar Rabhman Chowdhury has been adjudicated insolvent since the institution of the appeal and the Official Assignee, having refused to be joined as an appellant, has been added as a pro forma respondent.2. It was alleged in the amended plaint that the above-mentioned plaintiff had for valuable consideration sold and assigned to the other plaintiff, Rebecca J. Hyam, one half of his right, title and interest in the estate of Nawab Syed Abdus Sobhan Chowdhury of Bogra, of whom the first plaintiff claimed to be the legitimate son.3. The appeal, therefore, was prosecuted by Mrs. Hyam alone.4. The suit was brought by the first plaintiff, who may be called for the sake of convenience 'Habib,' to obtain a declaration that he is the sole heir of the said Nawab Sobhan and as such is and has since his death and up to the 11th of October, 1915, been entitled to possession and enjoyment of the estate and properties...
Sreemutty Chand Bibi Vs. Lal Mohamed, and on His Death His Heirs and L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.692
1. This is a suit between a sister and a brother, in which the plaintiff claims her share of the properties left by her father who died 37 years before the date of the institution of the suit. The Munsif decreed the suit and the learned District Judge has dismissed it on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The principles to be applied in cases of this sort will be found set out in the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ayennessa Bibi v. Sheikh Isuf 14 Ind. Cas. 722 : 16 C.W.W. 849 and Faizuddin Khan v. Reju Akub 28 Ind. Cas. 22 : 21 C.L.J. 192. It appears to us, on reading the judgment of the learned District Judge, that he fully appreciated the legal point in this case and having' done so, his findings as to the facts cannot be attacked in second appeal. It is contended that the possession of the brother cannot be adverse unless it is shown that there was a demand made by the sister which was refused. Though this contention finds some support in the decision in the case o...
Mahamed Ayub Chowdhury Vs. Elahi Baksh Mandal and Fakirullah Mean
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.258
1. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of certain land on the basis of a lease granted to him by the 2nd defendant on 2nd Sravan 1316 B. S., corresponding to 18th July 1909; in the alternative, be asked for a return of the premium paid to the defendant No. 2, when the lease was granted. The first defendant, who was in possession of the land, pleaded that he was in possession under a Kabuliyat executed by him and accepted by the defendant No. 2 on 30th May 1909, The lower Courts have found that this Kabuliyat was duly executed and accepted by the lessor and that the plaintiff's title is not valid as against defendant No. 1. As regards his claim against defendant No. 2, it has been held by both-the Courts to be barred by limitation. At the commencement of the hearing of this appeal, the learned Pleader for the plaintiff-appellant admitted that, on the findings of fact, he could not ask for a reversal of the dismissal of the suit as against the defendant No. 1. The only p...
Kali Kishore Das Vs. Gopal Ram Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.766
1. In this case it appears that in execution of a decree for rent the landlord decree-holder proposes to eject the tenant under the provisions of Section 52 of the Bengal Act VIII of 1869.2. To avoid the ejectment a 3rd person claiming to be a transferee from the tenant seeks to make the deposit provided for by the section cited, and to this end the learned Subordinate Judge of Sylhet has directed the Court of first instance to inquire into the applicant's status.3. It is against this order that the present Rule is directed.4. In making his order the Subordinate Judge relies on the decision reported as Sarodapersad Roy Chowdhry v. Nobichand Butt Marsh. 417 : 2 Hay 527 and there is a similar decision in 2 Hay 527. But in these reports the facts are not fully stated, and possibly they are cases of transferable holdings or tenures, In the present case it is not disputed that the holding is not transferable.5. But it appears that the applicant claims to be the transferee of a portion only,...
Syed Habibur Rahaman Chaudhury and anr. Vs. Syed Altaf Ali Chaudhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.545
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Greaves, J. The plaintiff Habibur Rahaman Chaudhry has been adjudicated insolvent since the institution of the appeal, and the Official Assignee having refused to be joined as an appellant, has been added as a pro forma respondent.2. It was alleged in the amended plaint that the above-mentioned plaintiff had for valuable consideration sold and assigned to the other plaintiff Rebecca J. Hyam one-half of his right, title and interest in the estate of Nawab Syed Abdus Sobhan Chaudhry of Bogra, of whom the first plaintiff claimed to be the legitimate son.3. The appeal, therefore, was prosecuted by Mrs. Hyam alone.4. The suit was brought by the first plaintiff, who may be called for the sake of convenience 'Habib', to obtain a declaration that he is the sole heir of the said Nawab Sobhan and as such, is and has since his death and up to the 11th of October 1915 been entitled to and to possession and enjoyment of the estate an...
The Hon'ble Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, Sir Syed Wasif Ali Meerza, K ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.465
1. In this case the decree-holder landlord, in execution of what was found to be a money-decree, sought to put to sale the right, title and interest of the. judgment-debtor in a certain non-transferable occupancy holding.2. The judgment-debtor objected on the ground that the interest could not be sold without his consent. The Munsif rejected the objection.3. The judgment-debtor thereupon appealed to the District Judge, who reversed the order of the Munsif.4. The decree-holder now appeals and his contention is that against the order of the Munsif no appeal lay to the District Judge.5. Relying on the decision of the Full Bench in Kali Mandal v. Ramsabaswa Chakravarti 32 C. 957 : 9 C.W.N. 721 : 1 C.L.J. 476 (F.B.), the District Judge held that an appeal lay on the ground that the order of the Munsif in effect decided a question as to an interest in land between parties having conflicting claims thereto.6. The effect of the Full Bench decision relied upon by the District Judge, we may obse...
Narendra Bhusan Roy on His Death His Sons and Legal Representatives Kh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Cal181(1),50Ind.Cas.329
Teunon, J.1. In this case in a suit framed under Section 148 A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, certain co-sharer landlords obtained a decree for the arrears of rent due in respect of a certain tenure spoken of as a ganti.2. In execution of the decree, in proceedings taken under the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Act, the decree-holder landlords brought the tenure to sale and themselves purchased the same.3. The sum realised was in fact insufficient to satisfy the decree.4. The remaining co-sharer landlords next applied under Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Civil Procedure Code to have the sale set aside.5. Both the Courts below have held that the Co-sharer landlords have no locus standi to make the application. Now the suit in which the decree was obtained having been framed in the manner provided in Section 148 A, under that section and also under Section 158 B, the decree has the force and effect of a rent decree. This was the case of the decree holders and it was further their case that by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›