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.
Indian Stamp Act and Vs. Ibrahim Ishak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.221
Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case learned Counsel has conceded, and I think rightly, that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy; and, consequently, it comes within Article 35, Clause (a), Sub-clause (i) of the First Schedule of the Indian Stamp Act, that is to say, 'the lease purports to be for a term of less than one year.' Therefore, the proper stamp duty is the same duty as for a bond which is referred to in Article 15 and inasmuch as the amount is above Rs. 50 and does not exceed Rs. 100, the proper stamp duty is eight annas, as the learned Judge has decided.Woodroffe, J.2. I agree....
Ananda Chandra Das Vs. Kali Das Bepari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.955
Teunon, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for the purpose of setting aside a kabuliyat executed by the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, and a patta granted to him by the defendant-respondent. The defendant is an under-raiyat of what may be described as the first decree, while the plaintiff is a sub-tenant under him, or a sole under raiyat of the second degree. It appears that in the year 1911 they were engaged in litigation, in which the present defendant sought to eject the plaintiff from his holding. The present plaintiff's answer in that suit was that he had a permanent interest in his holding and could not be ejected. This litigation went through many Courts, its final stage being a Letters Patent Appeal preferred to this Court by the present plaintiff The litigation ended on the 31st March 1914, when this Court made a decree in favour of the present plaintiff declaring that his contention was well-founded and that his lease, as a matter of fact, conferred on ...
Ram Nath Parui Vs. Harimati Dassi on His Death Her Heiress and Daughte ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.322
1. The defendant in this suit is in possession of certain tanks belonging to the plaintiff. It is found that the defendant came into possession under an agreement in writing which, if it had been registered in accordance with the requirements of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, would have been a valid lease for a term of eight years. Being unregistered, however, the document is, under the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, inadmissible in evidence, at any rate as a lease. In that state of things the plaintiff seeks to evict the defendants on the footing that he is at the highest a tenant at sufferance. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the lower Appellate has made a decree in the plaintiff's favour.2. On this appeal it has been contended on the defendant's behalf that having been placed in possession, he is in the same position as if the written agreement had been duly registered as a lease. In support of that contention we have been referred to a number...
Promathanath Pal Chaudhuri, Shebait of Iswar Lakshmi Jouardon Thakur V ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal210,50Ind.Cas.335
Greaves, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. His suit was for a declaration of his title to certain property and the District Judge of Nadia has held--agreeing with the Subordinate Judge of Krishnagar--that the suit is barred by Section 66 of the present Civil Procedure Code. The appellant contends that, this is not so and that Section 66 has no application to his suit. The material facts are as follows: On the 4th or 11th August 1903 the property in suit was purchased in the name of the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff's son, as the plaintiff alleses, benami, at an auction sale held in execution of a money decree. The sale was, we are told, confirmed on the 30th July 1906 and a sale certificate issued to defendant No. 1 on the 24th April 1909. In the month of March 1911, defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the property to defendant No. 2, who commenced a suit for specific performance of the contract on the 9th August 1912, as a result of which the defendant No. 1 conveyed the...
Chuni Lal Haldar Vs. Srimati Makshada Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.309
1. This is an appeal by Chuni Lal Haldar, claimant No. 6, and arises oat of apportionment proceedings before the President of the Tribunal under the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. The respondents are Mikhoda Debi, claimant No. 5, and Upandra Nath Sen, claimant No. 8. By a declaration dated 16th February 1915, 5 cottas 3 chittaks and 4 square feet of land were acquired under the Act, the total compensation awarded being Rs. 4,588-0-8. The property originally belonged to Kali Charan Haldar. He had three sons, Raj Kumar, Krishna Kishore and the appellant. Both the two first are dead. Makhoda Debi is the widow of Krishna Kishore. On 8th March 1884 Makhoda Debi obtained Letters of Administration to her husband's estate from the District Judge of the 24-Pergannas. On 1st April 1890 she further obtained from the District Judge under Section 90 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881, leave to sell certain property of her husband, including his one third in the land now acquired, for not ...
Raja Krista Das Law and ors. Vs. Kumar Khirada Kanta Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.160
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. These appeals are preferred against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated 12th August 1916, reversing a decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiffs brought these suits for rent. What has been found is this that the defendant was dead at the date of the institution of the suits. The plaintiffs, however, have deliberately gone on with the cases, applying for the substitution of the heirs of the defendant who was dead at the time of the institution of the suits. The decisions of the Courts show that the plaintiffs were not entitled to do so. The decision in this Court of a Bench consisting of Sir Barnes Peacock and Mr. Justice D.N. Mitter in the case of Mohun Chunder Koondoo v. Azeem Gazee Chowkeedar 12 W.R. 45 ; 3 B.L.R.A.C.J. 233 and the decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of Veerappa Chetty v. Tindal Ponen 31 M. 86 ; 17 M.L.J. 551 ; 3 M.L.T. 12 show quite clearly that the course adopted by the plaintiffs was wrong....
Nagendra Nath Mukerjee Vs. Srimati Sarat Kumari Dabi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.335
Charles Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal by Nagendra Nath Mukerjee against an order of the District Judge of the 24 Pergannahs refusing Probate of the Will of the petitioner's wife Raja Bala Debi. The lady died on 3rd May 1917. The Will propounded by the executor is said to have been executed on 8th April 1917 a little less than a month before her death. The caveat was filed by Sarat Kumari Debi, the only daughter of the testatrix who herself is a widow with one son and two daughters, all under age. The petitioner presented his application for Probate on 7th June 1917, so that there was no delay in that proceeding after Raja Bala's death. The contest between the father and his daughter has really reference to a suit which is pending and which was brought by Raja Bala and her mortgagee Kumar Arun Chandra Singha in 1916. Raja Bala had purchased a two-thirds share in a property known as Thakur Mahasay's garden in 1912 and in 1914 she granted an usufructuary mortgage of it to Kumar Arun Chan...
Gadadhar Bhatak Vs. Satish Chandra Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.854
Teunon, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of a certain plot of land on declaration of title.2. It appears that in the town of Howrah there were two brothers, named Haranath and Satcouri. In the year 1877 a parcel of homestead land was bought in the name of Satcouri and in the year 1879 a confirmatory pattah was granted by the landlord also in his name. On this parcel of homestead land stood a building to which at some later period certain additions were made. The elder brother Haranath died about the year 1887. His son Jogendra died in 1892. Satcouri lived to the year 1905. Thereafter in the year 1911 the widow of Satcouri sold this parcel of land with the building standing thereon to the plaintiff, and in the same year the widow of Jogendra sold the same property to the defendants. The contest in this suit and in this appeal is between these two rival purchasers.3. The contention of the plaintiff is that the premises were the sole self...
Amar Krishna Sen Vs. Chandra Kumar Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.793
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against a decision of the learned District Judge of Noakhali, dated 31st March 1917, affirming a decision of the Munsif of Sudharam. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of rent of certain land in a town to which the pro visions of the Transfer of Property Act, and not those of the Bengal Tenancy Act, apply.2. The only question raised in this appeal is this. The defendants stated that they had tendered the rent due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that the tender was not valid, as it was not an unconditional one within the meaning of Section 38 of the Indian Contract Act. What was found is this. When the defendants tendered the money, they demanded a receipt and to have it mentioned therein that the holding that they held under the plaintiff was a kaimi raiyati holding and that as the Tahsildar of the plaintiff refused to give them such a receipt, they declined to pay and, therefore, the present suit was brought...
Sheikh Kasem and ors. Vs. KasimuddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal53,50Ind.Cas.290
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Faridpur, dated the 12th February 1917, reversing a decision of the learned Munsif of Bhanga, dated the 6th August 1915. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of certain land on the ground that the defendants were under raiyat, and they were served with a notice to quit under the terms of Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants set out a case that they were raiyats and had a right of occupancy. The lower Appellate Court has found that the defendants were under raiyats but that they had a right of occupancy in the land.2. It is stated that the plaintiffs were taken by surprise and that, therefore, the case ought to go back to the first Court to be re-tried, I do not think that the plaintiffs could be taken by surprise. They had the Record of Rights before them at the time of institution of the suit and an entry in the record sho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »