Kolkata Court January 1919 Judgments

In Re: Anshu Prokash Ghose

Court: Kolkata

Rankin, J.1. This is a motion in the insolvency of one Anshu Prokash Ghose who was adjudicated, in this Court by order of the 3rd August 1917. The present applicant is Akhoy Chunder Ghose, who at one time was a partner with the insolvent, in a firm of building contractors called A.P. Ghose and Company, under Articles of Partnership, dated the 13th December 1915. By a mortgage deed, dated 27th March 1917 wherein the partnership was recited, and the fact that it had been dissolved, the insolvent mortgaged to the applicant the premises No. 1-1, Issur Mill Lane (subject to a prior mortgage) to secure the sum of Rs. 24,500 as being the amount for which the applicant was to release all claim against, and interest in, the partnership. This sum appears to have been calculated, not on the amount ascertained by the taking of an ordinary partnership account, but on the amount put into the business by the present applicant with certain interest.2. On the 21st January 1918, the applicant, as mortga...

Dakshina Ranjan Dutt Vs. Fakir Chandra Sen and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.34

N.R. Chatterjea, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of a prescriptive right of way claimed by the plaintiff over the defendant's land and for other reliefs.2. The right of way claimed is in connect in with a passage for Mehters to cleanse a privy attached to the plaintiff's house. That privy is situated to the south of the privy belonging to the defendant and both the privies appear to have been served by common Mehters.3. The court of first instance held that the prescriptive right had not been proved. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court held that it was proved, and accordingly made a declaration that the plaintiff had a right way and granted a perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of the same.4. The defendant has appealed to this Court.5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that as the Mehters used to pass over the land for the purpose of cleansing the defendant's privy also and not merely for cleansing the privy of the plaintiff, the right ...

Dinesh Chandra Das on His Death His Heirs Suresh Chandra Das and ors. ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.370

1. Upon the terms of the kabuliyat of the 3rd Falgun 1311 B.S., it is quite clear that the rent of the defendants' old holding was thereby enhanced from Rs. 31 to Rs. 57-13-0. That is an enhancement of more than two annas in the rupee and the kabuliyat so far as it relates to the old holding is, therefore, void under the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The learned Subordinate Judge in the lower Appellate Court seems to have thought that because the original rent of the old holding was fixed before the Tenancy Act came into force, Section 29 has no application to the kabuliyat now in question which was executed after the Act came into force. That view has not been supported before us and is obviously incorrect. In the case of Tejendro Narain Singh v. Bakai Singh 22 C. 658 : 11 Ind. Dec.(N.S.) 439, to which the Subordinate Judge refers, the increased rent was payable under a kabuliyat executed before the Act came into force.2. It is true that the kabuliyat relates n...

Telendrajit Raj Kumar Vs. Gunendrajit Raj Kumar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.374

1. This is a second appeal and the point arises in this way.2. When the appeal to the lower Appellate Court was presented it was found to be out of time. The appellant, who was the defendant No. 2 in the suit, filed an affidavit explaining circumstances. Upon that the then District Judge ordered the appeal to be admitted 'subject to objection at the bearing.' The appeal came on for bearing before his successor and it appears that on behalf of the respondents, the plaintiffs, no objection was taken at the hearing to the order of admission. The appeal was heard at length on the merits and the District Judge in his judgment has discussed and pronounced upon the merits, his conclusion being that the decree of the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs was erroneous and that the suit should have been dismissed. Having, however, come to that conclusion, he seems to have noticed the order made when the appeal was admitted and acting suo motu he went on to deal with the question of limitation...

Saradindu Mukherjee Vs. Charu Chandra Dutt and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.885

1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the, Additional District Judge of the 21-Pergannas, dated the 5th August 1915, modifying the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Alipur, dated the 9th April 1914.2. It is necessary to state before dealing with the contentions raised by the appellant a few material facts. On the 29th January 1907 one Suresh Chandra Ganguly made his Will and thereby, inter alia, dedicated the bulk of his properties to an idol which he might thereafter establish or which might be established after his death at Benares. In his Will he made provision for the five sons of his two daughters named Keshab, Gopal, Bankim, Khetra and Mritunjoy. Suresh died on the 7th February 1907, and on the 19th November 1907 Probate of his Will was granted to Satis Chandra Sen, the executor named in the Will. Satis died on the 30th January 1908 and Keshab, one of the five grandsons, commenced a suit in 1908 for the construction of his grandfather's Will, for the ad...

Peary and anr. Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.348

Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This matter comes before us upon an application to review the case, a certificate having been given by the learned Advocate-General in pursuance of Clause 26 of the Letters Patent.2. The case was tried before my learned brother Mr. Justice Fletcher and a Jury at the Criminal Sessions and it resulted in the conviction of both the accused.3. There were many grounds stated in the application to the learned Advocate-General, but after hearing the argument of the learned Counsel for the accused who, in my opinion, put the case very clearly and concisely on behalf of his clients and. after reading the note which has been made by the learned Judge who tried the case, the matter resolved itself into two points: first, it alleged that certain material and important points in support of the case for the defence had not been put before the Jury by the learned Judge and secondly, that sufficient distinction had not bean made between the cases of the two accused persons.4...

Jiban Kali Mukherjee Vs. Manimala Dassi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1919Cal159,49Ind.Cas.1006

1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a rent suit. Three points were urged before us in appeal. First, it is said that a good tender was made and that, therefore, the Court should not have allowed interest at the rate claimed. Secondly, it is said that interest was claimed on the basis of a kabuliyat and that the first Court should not have admitted the kabuliyat in evidence, and thirdly it is said that having regard to the fact that it is not stated in the kabuliyat whether interest at the rate of Rs. 320 per cent, was per mensem or per annum, we should reject the provision in the kabuliyat with regard to the payment of interest.2. I will, deal with the third point first, because the first point really depends upon that. The kabuliyat unfortunately has not been translated and has not bean printed, and, therefore, it is impossible for us to arrive at a conclusion upon the kabuliyat itself as to whether the rate of interest is per mensem or per annum. This is the fault of the appella...

Arjad Ali Vs. Sheikh Habib and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1919Cal109,50Ind.Cas.12

1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the decision of the Additional Judge of Sylhet, dated the 15th of May 1916, affirming a decision of the Additional Munsif of Karimgunge, dated the 12th June 1915.2. The case turns upon two documents which will be found at pages 17 and 19 of the paper book. By the first of these documents Exhibit A, which is dated the 1st Chaitra 1305, one Sheikh Makbul transferred to Arjad Ali, the appellant before us, and to one Mobarak Ali the land comprised in the document. The document states that the vendor divests himself of his maliki right in the property and that the purchasers down to their children have the right and power to make sale and gift, There is no doubt that this document upon the face of it is an absolute sale. On the same date the same parties entered into another document, whereby it was agreed that if Makbul or his successor paid the entire amount of the purchase consideration of Ra. 13412 within two years from the date of the...

Tara Chand Roy and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1919Cal240(2),50Ind.Cas.45

1. These are appeals by the plaintiffs in two suits, both appeals being governed by one judgment.2. The plaintiffs sued for khas possession of two plots of land. It appears that these plots of land had been re-formed by the action of a certain river which lies to the north of the two plots, and it is not disputed, having regard to the findings of both Courts, that these lands now in dispute are accretions to the plaintiff's holding. The plaintiffs are tenants of the Government khas mahal lands.3. The only question that arises in appeal is whether the plaintiffs are debarred by reason of limitation from succeeding in the suit. As already stated both Courts have found title in their favour, and it is urged on their behalf that the acts of possession adverse to them by the defendants with regard to these lands are not sufficient to have given a title by adverse possession to the Government as against them, It appears that the Government on the 12th January 1901 took possession of the chur...

Promotha Nath Ganguly and anr. Vs. Amiraddi Sheikh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.178

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of a tank and also for arrears of rent with damages against three persons, on the allegation that they were the tenants of the plaintiffs under a Kabuliyat for a term of years and that on the expiry of the term, the plaintiffs were entitled to obtain khas possession.2. The kabuliyat was executed by defendant No. 1 alone and so far as he was concerned, he stated in his written statement that he had no objection to the plaintiff's getting khas possession. The other two defendants pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the plaintiffs, and that they held the tank in dispute under a third party (one Amodini Debi) to the suit.3. The Court of first instance found the question of title in favour of the plaintiffs and also found that all the defendants were tenants under the plaintiffs and accordingly gave a decree for khas possession as also a decree for rent against all the defendants.4. On appeal,...