Kolkata Court February 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.
Taran Mandal and ors. Vs. Raj Chandra Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal70,50Ind.Cas.296
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the District Judge of Jessore, dated 5th March 1917, affirming a decision of the Munsif of the same place of the 8th June 1915. The plaintiff's suit was for declaration of his title as an occupancy tenant to certain land and for possession thereof. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that they and not the plaintiff were the tenants of the land. When the case came on for trial before the Munsif, apparently both sides adduced conflicting evidence and the Munsif was not able on the conflict of evidence to arrive at any decision, but he relied upon two facts and first of all upon a mortgage bond, Exhibit 3, of the adjoining land executed in the year 1315 by the plaintiff in favour of the father-in-law of the 2nd defendant. In this document apparently the land in suit is described as being the land of Nibaran Mandal, who is a brother and predecessor in-interest of one Sitanath Mandal, and the Munsif found from ...
Uma Charan Biswas Vs. NabIn Chandra Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal95,50Ind.Cas.319
Greaves, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Faridpur, dated 19th December 1916, reversing a decision of the Munsif of Bhanga, dated 19th April 1915. The plaintiff's suit was to eject the defendant from the holding in suit. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was an under raiyat holding under a lease dated 28th Kartik 1299 for a period of nine years expiring in the year 1307 and which was not liable to be renewed. On the expiry of the term the tenant held over upon the terms of the lease until the year 1912, when the plaintiff gave him notice to quit. The suit was commenced on the 21st July 1914. The main allegation of the defendant was that the plaintiff was a tenure-holder and that he was an occupancy raiyat. At the same time he pleaded as an alternative case that if he was not an occupancy raiyat yet he had, by local usage, acquired a right of occupancy. The learned Subordinate Judge holds that the defendant is not liable to eject...
Sheikh Dastar Ali and anr. Vs. Ram Kumar Gopi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.378
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal comes before as under the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent owing to a difference of opinion between Mr. Justice Teunon and Mr. Justice Richardson. The facts relating to the case are simple. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from a portion of a certain holding. The case was this and the facts are thus found. The father of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 acquired by purchase a portion of a nontransferable occupancy holding from the defendant No. 3, the occupancy raiyat. Sub-sequent to the transfer to the father of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, defendant No. 3, the occupancy raiyat, in breach of the duty that he owed to his purchaser and in derogation of his own grant, purported to surrender to the landlord, the plaintiff, the portion of the nontransferable occupancy holding that he had already sold to the father of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. After such surrender the plaintiff instituted the present suit. The first Court re...
In Re: Rai Mohan Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal103,53Ind.Cas.175
Rankin, J.1. This is a motion to have it declared that two mortgages executed by an insolvent are inoperative as against the Official Assignee. The insolvent in this matter is one Durga Charan Shaw, one of 16 persons against whom an adjudication order was made in this Court as being the partners in certain businesses carried on in Calcutta and. at Naraingunge under the styles of Haridas Gopal Kristo and Bhairab Chunder Khelter Mohan. In addition to these businesses it appears that the parties interested therein carried on private money lending businesses; how many of such businesses there were is not at all clear.2. The acts of bankruptcy upon which the adjudication was founded, and of which in these proceedings the adjudication order is conclusive proof, relate to the two Calcutta businesses, and are, shortly, that the munib gomasthas, through whom these were carried on, had departed from their usual place of business on the 23rd June 1911, and that on the same date another gomastha h...
Shaikh Pokan and ors. Vs. Rajani Kamal Chakravarty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.285
1. The petitioners in these Rules were defendants in certain suits instituted by the opposite parties for recovery of certain sums of money under agreements executed by the petitioners in their favour. The main defence to the suits was, first, that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits, and, secondly, that the order of the Revenue Officer in certain commutation proceedings was binding on the plaintiffs in suits in the Small Cause Court. These objections were overruled by the Small Cause Court. The petitioners thereupon obtained these Rules.2. The first question for consideration is, whether the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to try the suits.3. The suits, as we have already said, were based upon certain agreements. The agreements in these cases are all similar in their nature, and we refer to one of them. The kabuliyat is described as one for agricultural labour for cultivating in partnership the khas khamar land (khas khamar jamir bhage chas abad kara krishi m...
Saherali Molla and ors. Vs. Bhola Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.265
1. The petitioner before us brought a suit for damages against the defendant for wrongfully catching and taking away fish from a tank in which the plaintiff said he had 8-annas share of which he was in possession.2. The suit was instituted in a Court of Small Causes. The defendant denied the title and possession of the plaintiff and set up various defences to the action, which it is unnecessary to refer to except that contained in the third paragraph of the written statement, where the defendant pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in a Small Cause Court as there were complicated questions of title involved in the suit. Upon this objection the plaint was returned by the Small Cause Court Judge to the petitioner for presentation to the proper Court. Probably the Court intended to proceed under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, which provides that when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes depend upon the proof or disp...
Peary Lal Mullick Vs. Surendra Krishna Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.160
1. This Rule relates to an order made in proceedings initiated under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, By a conditional order made under that section, the petitioner was directed to remove an obstruction from a riverside ghat as being part of a public way. In showing cause against the order under Section 137, the petitioner claimed that the ghat was his private properly and denied that the public had a right of way over it. The question so raised was a question of title and, therefore, as the Magistrate very properly recognised, the further question arose whether the petitioner's claim was a bona fide claim or whether it was in the usual phrase a mere pretence to oust the Magistrate's jurisdiction'. He decided that further question, however, as a preliminary question without going into evidence. His conclusion was in favour of the petitioner's good faith, and he made an order so declaring and further directing that unless the second party sought to establish his right in the ...
Priya Sundari Dasya Vs. Golapdi Sheik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal294,51Ind.Cas.534
1. No one appears to show cause in this Rule.2. The petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.3. It appears that he instructed his Pleader two days before the expiry of six months for making an application for substitution in the place of the deceased, but the Court made an order three days before the expiry of the six months that the suit had abated and in the circumstances, the Pleader for the petitioner advised him to make an application for setting aside the order of abatement. This was admittedly done within the period of 60 days from the date of abatement.4. The order of the Court that the suit had abated, which was passed three days too soon, was clearly wrong and if that order had not been made, the petitioner could have made the application for substitution within six months. After the order of abatement was passed, it is difficult to see how the application for substitution could be made within the six months. The learned Munsif says: 'it appears that t...
Brojeswar Banerjee and anr. Vs. Syama Charan Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal727,50Ind.Cas.363
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiffs claim rent at the highest prevailing rate in accordance with the terms of a kabuhyat executed by the defendants. The defendant No. 1 filed a written statement, denying among other things that the quantity of land for which rent was claimed was correctly stated in the plaint and also denying the correctness of the rate of rent prevailing in the locality. When the case came on for hearing the defendants were found absent. Evidence was taken ex parte and after considering the report of a Commissioner who was appointed to measure the land, an ex parte decree was made in favour of the plaintiffs.2. The defendant No. 1 appealed against the decree of the first Court and the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal modified the decree of the first Court. In the first place he held that the highest prevailing rate was not proved and accordingly he decreed rent at the rate of Rs. 1-12 0 per bigha which was the original rent reserved in the ...
Mohesh Ghose Vs. Umesh Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.241
Teunon, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a mortgage bond. The bond recites that the executant of the bond had borrowed 14 maps of paddy, and further provides for the payment of interest year by year at the rate of 2 salis of paddy per map. It further recites that for the realization of the said paddy, that is to say, the balance of paddy due after payment properties mentioned are mortgaged as security.2. In reliance upon the decision of a Divisional Bench of this Court reported as Rashbihari Das v. Kunjabihari Patra 37 Ind. Cas. 805 ; 24 C.L.J. 348 it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the suit is not one to enforce payment of money charged on immoveable property within the meaning of Article 132 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and that therefore the rule of limitation applicable is the six years' rule to be found in Article 116 or Article 120. Speaking for myself, I may say that I am not prepared to accept or fellow the view of Article 132 taken...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »