Kolkata Court January 1919 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.
Dhirendra Nath Ghose and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.904
S.A. No. 95 of 1917. 1. This is an appeal by the landlords, who made an application under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for (settlement of rent, and the only question in this appeal is whether the presumption provided for in Section 50, Clause 2, of the Bengal Tenancy Act has been rebutted or not. The Settlement Officer held that it had. The learned Special Judge held that it had not. The existing rent is Rs. 51-9-0 odd. That has been the rent at least from the year 1837. In that year a kabuliyat, which has been found by the Special Judge to be genuine, was executed and the appellants rely on the terms of that kabuliyat to show that the presumption provided for in Section 50, Clause 2, has been rebutted. The learned Special Judge was of opinion that the kabuliyat was merely a recognition of the existing tenancy. He referred to the use of certain words, namely, the words 'Khas Kobala' noted against rent to show that this was merely a recognition of the existing tenancy. Those wo...
Romesh Chandra Saha Vs. Kala Ganji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.331
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the decree-holder against the order of the learned District Judge of Tipperah, dated the 4th of September 1917, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Brahman-baria. The facts are these: A decree was obtained in the suit out of which the present appeal arises by a Hindu lady called Radharani, who was the widow of one Kailash Chunder Saha. The decree was a preliminary mortgage decree. The date of that decree was the 10th of August 1907. On the 28th September 1912 Radharani died and the final decree in that mortgage suit, which was made on the 3rd November 1913, was expressed to be made in favour of one Kumudbaudhu Saha, who alleged that he was the son adopted by Radharani under a power from her late husband Kailash Chunder Saha. The present appellant before us subsequent to that instituted a suit claiming to be the sole heir of Kailash Chunder Saha and entitled to the properties left by him on his death. That suit was decreed in favour ...
Gobinda Kumar Sur Vs. Ram Chandra Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal347,51Ind.Cas.945
1. The question raised in this case is whether the suit is barred by limitation.2. The suit was based upon two hundis payable in 30 days from the date of execution, and was brought more than three years from the data of the hundis but within three years from the expiry of the one month within which the hundis were payable. The hundis were not properly stamped and were, therefore, inadmissible in evidence.3. The Court below held that although the hundis were inadmissible in evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to sue on the original consideration and further that the plaintiff was entitled to prove by oral evidence the conditions under which the money was repayable by the debtor.4. As regards the first point, the Court below relied upon the case of Pramatha Nath Sandal v. Dwarka Nath Dey 23 C. 851 ; 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 565.5. The law to be applied in such cases is clearly laid down in the case of Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Khan 7 C. 256 ; 8 C.L.R. 528 ; 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 713 where Sir Rich...
Muhammad Hasan Mia and anr. Vs. Abdul Hamid and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal502,50Ind.Cas.431
Beachcroft, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of this appeal. It is said that the appeal first came up for admission on the 18th January 1917 and was then summarily dismissed. On an application for review of judgment the learned Judges, who dismissed it, set aside their order and admitted the appeal for hearing without notice to the opposite party. It is contended on the authority of the decision in the case of Abdul Hakim Chowdhury v. Hem Chandra Das 30 Ind. Cas. 165 : 42 C. 433, that the order admitting the review was made without jurisdiction and that the objection can be taken now. I am of opinion that it is not open to any Judge or Judges subsequently to question the order of the learned Judges who admitted the review, whatever may be his or their opinion as to the admission of the review. The view I take was taken in the cases of Haldar Jha v. Syed Shah Mohammad Ashraf Alam 25 Ind. Cas. 880 : 22 C.L.J. 95 and Janaki Nath Hore v. Prabhasini Dasi 30 Ind. C...
Biswanath Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Govinda Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal285,51Ind.Cas.88
Charles Chitty, J.1. This suit was instituted by Govinda Chandra Das for himself and as executor to the estate of Hari Mohan Roy to recover from Biswanath Bhattacharjya and his son Jogesh Nath Bhattacharjya Rs. 70,362-8-0, being the amount due for principal and interest on a Bill of Exchange for Rs. 50,000 and to enforce that claim as a charge upon the property mentioned in a letter of hypothecation which was said to have accompanied the bill. The Bill of Exchange was dated 2nd August 1908, and was drawn by Jogesh Nath on his father who, according to the plaintiff's case, accepted it. Jogesh drew the bill at Dacca. It was taken to Elenga by two of the plaintiff's men, and is said to have been there accepted by Biswanath on 4th August 1908, when he also signed the letter of hypothecation accompanying the bill. Plaintiff's case is that two payments were made for interest by Jogesh: one of Rs. 3,000 on 7th November 1910 and the other of Rs. 1,000 on 27th October 1911. It is conceded that ...
Asutosh Roy Vs. Ananta Ram Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal40,50Ind.Cas.727
1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 9 against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bankura, dated the 8th August 1917. The question that arises on the appeal is a very short one, namely, whether a prior suit in which the predecessors in-title of the defendant No. 9 were parties acts as res judicata in the present suit as against the appellant, defendant No. 912. It appears that in the month of May 1905 the suit which it is said makes the matter res judicata was filed in the, Munsif's Court. It was found that the value of the suit exceeded the jurisdiction of the Munsif's Court, and accordingly on the 21st June 1906 the suit was re filed in the proper Court. The defendants in that suit represented two families, one of whom is described as the Kara and the others as the Mandals. We are only concerned with the Mandals who were defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in that suit. On the 29th November 1907 the Mandals appeared for the first time and filed a written statement which is not before n...
AjiuddIn Ahamed Vs. L. Khoda Bux Khondkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.5
1. This Rule was obtained by one of the auction-purchasers who purchased the property of the judgment-debtor at a sale in execution, calling upon the opposite party, the judgment-debtor, to show cause why the judgment and order should not be set aside. The facts are perfectly simple. Certain property of the judgment-debtor was offered for sale and was purchased by two persons. The sale took place on the 5th May 1916. On the 4th October 1917 the judgment-debtor made an application under the provisions of Order XXI, rule 90, to have the sale set aside. To that application he only made one of the auction-purchasers a party. On the 8th October 1917, the other auction-purchaser was added as a party. It is common ground that that was beyond the time fixed by the Indian Limitation Act for making the other auction-purchaser a party. The question that we have now to decide is whether both the auction-purchasers were necessary parties to the application. It is said that they were not and relianc...
Jagadish Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Bama Sundari Dasya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal411,51Ind.Cas.972
Richardson, J.1. The three plaintiffs in the present suit, the appellants before as, are the sons of one Jadu Nath Nayaratna, deceased. The suit relates to an 8 1/4 anna share of a Sikmi Taluk, Ram Nath Ukil, which share belonged to Jadunath. One of the co sharer landlords, Ishan Chandra Lahiri, brought a suit for arrears of rent in respect of his share in the superior interest against Jadu Nath and his co sharers in the Taluk. In that suit an ex parte decree was made on the 20th September 1900. Jadunath died on the 22nd March 1901. In execution of the ex parte decree the Taluk (or a portion thereof) was sold by the Court on the 9th October 1901. The purchaser was one Naba Krist Nandi, the husband of the defendant No. 1. The sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was issued on the 29th November 1901.2. The plaintiffs brought the present suit to recover their father's share in the Taluk. The contention on which they now rely is that the sale of the 9th October 1901 was inoperative,...
The Chairman of the Rajpur Municipality, Hira Lal Ghose Vs. Nogendra N ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal244,50Ind.Cas.394
1. The question raised in this Rule is whether the Munsif was right in holding that the assessment of tax on the defendant by the Municipality was ultra vires.2. It is found that the defendant had property within the jurisdiction of the Municipality, the annual value of which is only Rs. 76, and that the tax on such property could not exceed Rs. 1, as was admitted by the officer of the Municipality examined in the case.3. The Court below has come to the conclusion that the circumstances and property of the defendant outside the Municipality were taken into consideration by the Commissioners in assessing the defendant with a tax of Rs. 9.4. Section 85 of the Bengal Act III of 1884 lays down that 'the Commissioners may, (to quote only so much of the section as is necessary) from time to time, at a meeting convened expressly for the purpose...impose within the limits of the Municipality....A tax upon persons occupying holdings within the Municipality according to their circumstances and p...
Raja Jote Coomar Mukerjee Vs. Monohar Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal519(1),50Ind.Cas.596
1. This Rule must be discharged. The present petitioner, the decree-holder, obtained the Rule calling upon the opposite party who were the transferees or partial transferees of a non-transferable occupancy holding. The landlord had obtained a rent decree against the tenant. The unrecognised transferees of this nontransferable occupancy holding have been permitted by the learned Judge to make a deposit of the decretal amount under the provisions of Section 171, Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioner obtained this Rule on the ground that the opposite party have no interest in the holding voidable on the proposed sale in execution. This matter has formed the subject of judicial decision in earlier cases. There are two decisions that are clearly in favour of the opposite party to the Rule. These decisions are, first, the case of Tarak Das Pal v. Harish Chandra Banerjee 16 Ind. Cas. 977 : 17 C.W.N. 163 : 16 C.L.J. 548. It is a decision of Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ., and, in my opinion, it de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »