Kolkata Court January 1919 Judgments

Bhuban Mohan Guha and ors. Vs. Seikhibadan

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.334

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of the lands in dispute brought by the plaintiff, who purchased the lands at a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent.2. There was a dispute as to the nature of the interest purchased by the plaintiff, but it is found by the lower Appellate Court that the interest of the tenant which was purchased by the plaintiff was an occupancy holding and that the defendant No. 1 was an under-raiyat under that tenant. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. On appeal the lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff was bound to annul the incumbrance of the defendant under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and also to serve a notice to quit under Section 49 of that Act.3. We are of opinion that the learned District Judge was wrong in the view he has taken in the case Section 85, Clause 28 C. 205; 5 C. W. N. 310., provides that if a raiyat sub lets otherwise than by a registered instrument, the sub-lease shall not be v...

Ramsaran Ray and ors. Vs. Ramprasanna Mukerjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.49

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to recover money due on a mortgage-bond by the sale of the mortgaged properties. The mortgage covers items of property and of these, the 4th is situated in the Santhal Parganas. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum. At the hearing before him it was contended that by reason of the provisions of Section 5 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation III of 1872, the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum bad no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. To meet this objection on the 21st March 1917 the plaintiffs presented a petition by which they amended their plaint by withdrawing their claim against the 4th item of property.2. The first contention of the appellants before us then is that this amendment made 11 1/2 months after the institution of the suit should not have been permitted. We think, however, that this amendment was within the discretion of the Subordinate Judge, and we cannot say that by permitti...

KafiluddIn Biswas Vs. Sabdar Ali Biswas

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1919Cal422,51Ind.Cas.918

1. This is a suit for rent. The main defence is that the tenant was not put in possession of the properties leased to him and is not, therefore, liable for payment of rent.2. The first Court decreed the suit but the decree was reversed by the lower Appellate Court and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff appeals. On his behalf it is urged that the facts found do not justify the dismissal of the suit. This contention cannot prevail.3. Having regard to proviso 3 of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, it was open to the learned Subordinate Judge to find that the ijara patta was intended to be operative only in the event of the lessee being able to obtain possession of the leasehold property and that such possession was a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under the lease upon which the present suit is based. This is what he has found and with that finding we cannot interfere.4. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs....

Kumud Bandhu Saha Vs. Romesh Chandra Saha

Court: Kolkata

Teunon, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for establishment of title, recovery of possession, mesne profits and accounts.2. One Rajchandra Shaha of Brahmanbariah died on the 19th Chait 1308=2nd April 1902, leaving him surviving his son Kailash Chandra Shaha and a widow Mahamaya. Kailash married one Radharani and died on 15th Poush 1310=December 1905. Radharani died on the 12th Assu 1319, that is the 28th of September 1912.3. By his Will dated 9th Poush 1307=24th December 1900, Rajchandra dedicated his 4 anna share in a certain Brahmittar Mouza to the service of certain deities, and directed that Mahamaya should be Shebait and that on her death the son Kailash should succeed her in that office. His other immoveable properties he divided between Kailash and Mabamaya bequeathing 12 annas to Kailash, and 4 annas to Mahamaya for her life. He next authorised Mahamaya to adopt three sons in succession, whether in the lifetime of Kailash or after his death, and provided that on Mahamaya's ...

Jogesh Chundra Sanyal Vs. Rasik Lal Saha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.690

1. These two appeals arise out of certain land acquisition proceedings and involve the question of apportionment.2. Appeal No. 245 refers to a plot spoken of as plot No. 81. The case of the appellant then was that one Sarna Moyee Debya held this plot No. 81 under him and his predecessor-in-interest and that Sarna Moyee's interest was that of an occupancy Raiyat, The case of the respondents is that Sarna Moyee held this plot as part of what is spoken of as a kaimi jote under a Brahmatordar of the name of Jadab Adhikari. The appellant's evidence with regard to this plot is extremely meagre.3. True it is that one of his witnesses, a person of the name of Gedu Mullick, says that Sarua Moyee paid rent to Jogesh's father in respect of this holding; but Jogesh does not himself say so. He produces no counterfoils or collection papers and he does not examine his Tahsildar. On these materials we cannot say that the learned District Judge is wrong in coming to the conclusion that Jogesh has not p...

Khardah Company, Ltd. Vs. Durga Charan Chandra

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal640

Chitty and Panton, JJ.1. The property in dispute in this appeal is eight bighas of land at Khardah. The plaintiff, Durga Charan Chandra, sues for a declaration of his title to a 19-80ths share of the land and for partition of that share by metes and bounds. The Subordinate Judge has given him a decree, and the Khardah Company, Limited, the defendants, have appealed.2. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are as follows: The property originally belonged to one Asutosh Roy Chowdhuri, who left it by will to his mother Sivakali absolutely, appointing her sole executrix. Sivakali obtained probate of the will in due course. On 10th September, 1906, Sivakali made a gift of 19-40ths of the property in equal moieties to Ram Chandra Banerjee and Khetra Mohan Banerjee. On 10th December, 1907, Ram Chandra purported to sell his 19-80ths to one Bepin Behari Haldar for Rs. 1,000 (Exh. 3). The plaintiff's case is that Bepin Behari Haldar was his benamidar and that this was really a sale to h...

Purna Chandra De Vs. Ambika Charan Adhikari and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1919Cal25(1),53Ind.Cas.624

1. This is a Rule to show cause why further enquiry should not be made into the complaint filed by the petitioner.2. It appears that the petitioner had charged certain persons not only with assaulting some of his boatmen but also with theft of two chalis of bamboos. We are informed that the value of these bamboos is Rs. 1,000. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate after hearing the complainant sent the case to the local panchayat for investigation and report. The panchayat submitted a report which is among the papers before us. Apparently, on receipt of this report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint without giving the complainant an opportunity of being heard. In dismissing the complaint the Sub Divisional Magistrate refers only to the charge of assault and says nothing about the alleged theft of bamboos.3. In the circumstances we are of opinion that further enquiry should be made into this complaint and we direct accordingly....

Khardah Company, Ld. Vs. Durga Charan Chandra

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.636

1. The property in dispute in this appeal is eight bighas of land at Khardah. The plaintiff Durga Charan Chandra, sues for a declaration of his title to a 19/80 the share of the land and for partition of that share by metes and bounds. The Subordinate Judge has given him a decree, and the Khardah Company, Limited, the defendants, have appealed.2. The facts of the ease which are not in dispute are as follows: The property originally belonged to one Asutosh Roy Chowdhuri, who left it by Will to his mother Sivakali absolutely, appointing her sole executrix. Sivakali obtained Probate of the Will in due course On 10th September 1906, Sivakali made a gift of 19/49ths of the property in equal moieties to Ram Chandra Banerjee and Khetra Mohan Banerjee. On 10th December 1907, Ram Chandra purported to sell his 19/80ths to one Bepin Behari Haldar for Rs. 1,000 (Exhibit 3). The plaintiffs case is that Bepin Behari Haldar was his benamidar and that this was really a sale to him. On 25th December 19...