Kolkata Court February 1919 Judgments
Murali Dhar Aditya Vs. Thakur Das Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.50
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiff brought the suit from which the appeal arises to eject the defendant or, in the alternative, to have an assessment of fair rent in respect of the land held by the defendant, and the basis of his claim was a purchase made under the provisions of Act XI of 1859. The defendant raised various defences, one being that the suit was barred by limitation, another, that the defendant was not a tenant of the land under the plaintiff and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to either remedy. The first Court dismissed the suit so far as the prayer for ejectment was concerned but gave the plaintiff a decree for fair rent, holding that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff. This decision was reversed by the learned District Judge on appeal and so far as the matter of limitation was concerned, the Judge proceeded upon a document which was put in by the defendant, then appellant, on the date on which the ar...
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Nibaran Chandra Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal78,50Ind.Cas.276
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 22nd March 1917, affirming a decision of the Munsif of the 12th December 1915.2. The plaintiff sued for rant in respect of certain premises, his allegation being that he had purchased a share in No. 3 in a revenue-paying estate. The defendants admitted holding the land and did not dispute that rent was payable by them, but they said that the rent was payable to different persons and accordingly under the provisions of Section 149 of the Bengal Tenancy Act they paid the amount of rent in Court. Thereupon a third person, who under the provisions of Section 149(3) claimed the money, brought a title suit against the present appellant. The title suit failed but the Court held that both the third party and the present appellant were each entitled to a share in the land in respect of which the plaintiff claimed rent in the rent suit. As the result of the decision of the title s...
Tag this Judgment!Prohlad Chandra Shaha Vs. Ambica Charan Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal92,50Ind.Cas.514
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit by an under raiyat to recover possession of the lands included in his under-raiyati lease as against his landlord.2. The lease was for a term exceeding nine years and the sub-letting, therefore, was in contravention of the provisions of Section 85.3. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property as sub-lessee and the lower Appellate Court, though it does not come to a specific finding, generally agrees with the first Court upon the present question.4. That being so, the plaintiff's claim must be restricted to the claim upon the lease registered in contravention of the provisions of Section 85, Clause (2). It, therefore, falls within the class of decisions of which Jarip Khan v. Durfa Bewa 15 Ind. Cas. 476 : 17 C.W.N. 59 : 16 C.L.J. 144. is a type and not within the class of cases where an under-raiyat being in possession of the property as sub-lessee sues to recover possession on being dispossessed.5. It m...
Tag this Judgment!Ujir Ali Vs. Siddique Ahamed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal152,50Ind.Cas.882
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of the District Judge of Chittagong of the 27th November 1916, dismissing the appeal from the decision of the Munsif of the 26th August 1916 on the ground that the appeal was time-barred.2. The facts are as follows: The suit was one for declaration of title and possession. The Munsif delivered judgment on the 26th August 1916 in favour of the plaintiff. The Munsif signed his decree on the 5th September 1916. On the 23rd September 1916 the defendant applied for copy of the decree. On the 25th September the Court was closed for the pujas. On the 30th October the Court re-opened and on the 30th October an order was made rejecting the application for copies as the record had been taken to the District Court some 26 miles away. The defendant thereupon journeyed to the District Court and on the 31st he filed the memorandum of appeal and applied for copies and moved the Subordinate Judge, who was then in charge, to extend t...
Tag this Judgment!Banwari Bullav Roy Vs. Rash Behary Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal59(1),50Ind.Cas.933
Walmsley, J.1. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration of his right to irrigate eer. tain lands from a lark belonging to the defendant. He claimed the right by prescription under the Indian Limitation Act and in the alternative on the ground of lost grant. The first Court found that no right had been made out under the Indian Limitation Act but found that the plaintiff had the right by custom. The defendant appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the first Court regarding the claim by prescription and negatived the case of custom. He found, however, in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of lost grant. The defendant has appealed to this Court.2. It is urged that the case is one to which the doctrine of lost grant cannot apply. It appears that the plaintiff was a part owner of the tank until May 1896 when the defendant bought his interest, so that a period of only 18 years elapsed before the institution of the suit. It is well es...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Chandra Das Vs. Bhusan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal201(1),(1919)ILR46Cal867
Riciiardson and Shams-ul-Huda, JJ.1. In this case the opposite party was prosecuted by the present petitioner under, Section 2 of Act XIII of 1859. The hearing of the case began on the 21st November, 1918, and was adjourned to the 18th December, when as the order sheet shows, the defence was closed and arguments were heard. The Magistrate then adjourned the case to the 21st December for judgment. On the 21st December the learned Magistrate, instead of delivering judgment, acquitted the opposite party, under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the complainant was absent without any reasonable excuse. Under Section, 247 'if the summons has been issued on complainant, and upon the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks proper t...
Tag this Judgment!Hemlata Debi Vs. Radharaman Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal260,51Ind.Cas.561
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the decision of the learned District Judge of Suri, dated the 13th August 1917. The appellant applied for revocation of the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed that had been issued to her brother-in-law, one of the respondents to the present appeal, as the certified guardian and for the use of his wife, the other respondent. The appellant, who was the petitioner in the Court below, says that the Letters ought to be revoked on the ground that there is defect in the substance and also on the ground that no inventory of the estate has been furnished to the Court. The facts are these: The estate, which amounts to Rs. 399, belonged to the father of the applicant. He had a wife and six daughter Section. Three of the daughters had been married during his lifetime and the other three were not. On his death, an application was made for issue of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. The time that elapsed between the date when...
Tag this Judgment!Jagabandhu Talukdar and ors. Vs. Nanda Lal Sirkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal720,50Ind.Cas.798
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Pabna, dated the 15th August 1917. The matter that was before the learned Judge and out of which this appeal arises was a reference for settlement of a dispute as to the apportionment of compensation made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and the reference is clearly stated on the record to have been made under Section 30 of the Act. The appellants are the Patnidars and the respondents Are the Zemindars. The appellants say that they want the Zemindars to have all the compensation and, in lieu thereof, they want the Court to reduce their rent. The Zemindars apparently want the Patnidars to have all the compensation and not to have the rent reduced. The first point that was taken in the appeal was with reference to the jurisdiction of the learned Additional District Judge to hear the matter. It was suggested that the learned Additional District Judge had no power to hear it because he ...
Tag this Judgment!Prafullananda Goswami and ors. Vs. Brojendra Nandan Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.593
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 19th September 1916, and it is preferred against an order declining to direct that Letters of Administration granted in respect of the Will of one Premanund Goswami should be called in and that the administrator should prove the Will in solemn form. What happened is this: The deceased Premanund Goswami was the maternal grandfather of the present applicants. He died on the 28th Sraban 1283. The Will is dated two days before and it seems to have been handed over to the Sub Registrar shortly after his death. The deceased left him surviving his widow Srimati Basan Coomari as his heiress according to the Hindu Law and an only daughter Rajani Coomari who was the immediate reversioner. Rajani Coomari had two sons, Profulla and Atulanund, then born and there was another son born to her subsequently. These three sons of Rajani Coomari are the three petitioners in this case. In 1885, ...
Tag this Judgment!Khamasa Bewa, Mother and Heir of Late Natu Sheik Vs. Promotho Nath Roy ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal389,51Ind.Cas.967
1. The plaintiffs-opposite party instituted a suit for recovery of the price of trees out down and appropriated by the defendant. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Piugna in the District of Mymensingh. At the time of the institution of the suit, the presiding officer of the Court was not vested with the powers of a Small Cause Court. The suit was registered as an ordinary money suit and proceeded with as such. At the time of the trial the Munsif was transferred and his suceessor-in office had Small Cause Court powers. He, however, tried the suit under the ordinary procedure. The suit was decreed by the Munsif in favour of the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiff No. 1 appealed to the District Judge. On appeal the learned District Judge sent the case back for trial on certain issues. When the case same back to the Court of first instance on remand, the Munsif who had tried the suit was transferred and his successor, who had to deal with the issues sent down by the District...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »