Kolkata Court March 1919 Judgments
Sheikh Goharaddi Vs. HasaIn Karikar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal364,52Ind.Cas.1
Asutosh Chaudhuri, J.1. This suit originally was for the possession of 8 annas share in plots Nos. 1 to 6 and for the whole of plot No. 7. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession of plot No. 7, and the appeal now relates to 8 annas of plots Nos. 1 to 6.2. These plots of land belonged to one Saber, the father of defendant No. 1. He made a heba of these plots in favour of his widow Sabani Bibi and a foster-son of the name of Kuran. The defence originally was that the heba was executed under the undue influence of Sabani Bibi at a time when the defendant was not present.3. The learned Munsif held against that contention and after having dealt with the case made by the defendant upon that question he added that the defence was improved at the trial and in the arguments by introducing certain objections. One of these objections was that the gift was invalid on the principle of Musha. He held that the objection was not a purely legal objection but...
Tag this Judgment!C.D.M. Hindley Vs. JoynaraIn Marwari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal962,54Ind.Cas.439
Rankin, J.1. In this case I am asked under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside an order made by the Small Cause Court on 23rd November 1918. That order is as follows: 'Payable in two weeks. In default execution to issue.'2. The action was tried in the Court of the 2nd Munsif at Monghyr. The plaintiffs in 1914 lent Rs. 200 on a promissory note to the defendant's son who Was an employee of the E.I.R. and who died on the 27th September 1916 leaving neither widow nor children. So far as the parties know he left no will and neither Probate nor Letters of Administration have been granted to anyone in respect of his estate. The plaintiffs in 1917 applied as creditors to the District Judge at Monghyr for a grant of administration but their application was dismissed. In these circumstances the action was brought against the defendant apparently as being 'the heir at law and legal representative' of his son. As appears by the Munsif's decree of 29th January 1918 the suit was dec...
Tag this Judgment!Begg, Dunlop and Co. Vs. Satish Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal1001
Chatterjee and Newbould, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants appellants from further building on, or changing the character of the land of which the plaintiff is seeking to recover possession from them. The land in dispute consists of two plots, the first plot being about a bigha in area according to the plaintiff, and about 16 cottas according to the defendants. The second plot is about a bigha in area and there is a tank on a portion of it.2. The plaintiff alleges that these two plots of lands are included within the estate No. 2402 of, the 24-Par-ganahs Collectorate which was purchased by him at a sale for arrears of revenue on the 8th January 1915. In August 1915 the plaintiff issued a general notice on the. property to the effect that the interests of tenants under leases (except those protected) were thereby annulled.3. It appears that on the 8th and 9th August 1911, the two plots of land in dispute, which belonged t...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamad Biswas and anr. Vs. Benoy Bhusan Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.515
1. This appeal arises out of a suit rent brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants Nos. 1 to 9, who are the appellants.2. It appears that a suit for rent of the holding was brought by the defendants Nos. 10 to 13 who were the co-sharers of the plaintiffs in the year 1911, and that suit was framed as a suit under Section 148A. The present plaintiffs bad been made parties to that suit. In execution of the decree obtained in that suit, the holding was put up to sale but the notice as required by Section 158B, sub-section 2, was not served on the present plaintiffs, the co-sharer-landlords. The defendants Nos. 10 to 13, decree holders in that suit, purchased the holding at the sale.3. The plaintiffs brought the present suit for recovery of rent. The tenant defendants pleaded that the, holding had passed by the sale to the defendants Nos. 10 to 13, that they had taken a settlement from the latter and were in possession, that there was, therefore, no relationship of landlord and tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Amrita Lal Mukherjee Vs. Hiralal Mukherjee and Moti Lal Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.643
1. The only question in this appeal is, whether the decree-holder's application for execution, dated 21st July 1916, was barred by limitation. It appears that the decree was passed on 30th May 1910 on a Solenama, the decree being for partition of joint family property. In 1913 there was an application for execution which was dismissed for default on 31st July 1913. The question is--from what date did the time run against the appellant? It is argued for him that it ran from 26th July 1913 because, first, on that day he cross-examined Hiralal Mukherjee with reference to an objection which was then being taken to execution, and, secondly, there was an order in his favour that he should pay talbana for formal possession, if he liked to get it, within three days. It is clear that neither of these things will take the case out of limitation or give him a fresh starting point. The cross-examination of an opponent cannot be said to be an application to the Court to take a step in-aid of execut...
Tag this Judgment!Begg Dunlop and Company and anr. Vs. Satis Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.862
1. This is an appeal against an order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendents-appellants from farther building on or changing the character pf the land of which the plaintiff is seeking to recorver possession from them. The land in dispute consists of two plots, the first plot being about a bigha in area according to the plaintiff and about 16 cottahs according to the defendants. The second plot is about a bigha in area and there is a tank on a portion of it.2. The plaintiff alleges that these 2 plots of lands are included within the Estate No. 2402 of the 24-Perganahs Collectorate which was purchased by him at a sale for arrears of revenue on the 8th January. 1915. In August 1915, the plaintiff issued a general notice on the property to the effect that the interests of tenants under lessees (except those protected) were thereby annulled.3. It appears that on the 8th and 9th August 1911, the two plots of land in dispute, which belonged to a family known as the Haldar...
Tag this Judgment!Afiruddi Chakdar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.485
Richardson, J.1. The nine appellants were triad by the Sessions Judge of Faridpur and a Jury. The Jury found them all guilty under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 304 read with Section 149. They further found four of the appellants guilty of substantive offences under Section 324. The Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the Jury and sentenced the appellants to various terms of imprisonment. The appeal is based on the ground of misdirection in the charge delivered by the learned Sessions Judge to the Jury.2. The first part of the charge deals at some little length with the difference between stories which are wholly true, stories which are partly true and partly false and stories which are wholly false. No exception can be taken to this part of the charge but it may be doubtful whether it gave the Jury very much assistance.3. We have no desire in this connection to lay down any precise rule as to the form which a charge should take. The form and contents ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendro Nath Mitra Vs. Kshitindra Mohun Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal314,53Ind.Cas.59
1. On the 24th March 1901 the plaintiff exeouted a usufructuary mortgage of land in favour of the first defendant for the benefit of the latter and his father, the second defendant. The defendants went into possession but defaulted to pay rent to the superior landlord, who had the property sold under Regulation VIII of 1819. The third defendant became the purchaser at this sale. The Courts below have concurrently found, contrary to the allegation of the defendants, that the sale was brought about by the fraud of the first two defendants, that the purchase was made by them in the name of their 'relation, the third defendant, and, that their possession of the property has been in no way affected by the proceedings in Court. On the 10th September 1912 the plaintiff commenced this suit for redemption of the mortgage and obtained a 'decree in the trial Court. Three appeals were thereupon preferred, one by the first two defendants, a second by the third defendant, and the third by the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Makhan Chandra Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal590,51Ind.Cas.385
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment of the defendants from a tenancy on the ground that they have used the land in a manner which renders it unfit for the purposes of the tenancy. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the notice alleged to have been served on the defendants did not fulfil the requirements of Section 155 (1) of the Bengal Tenanay Act.2. Section 155 provides that a suit for the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of misuse of land or breach of covenant shall not be entertained, unless the landlord has served, in the prescribed manner, a notice on the tenant, specifying the particular misuse or breach complained of and where the misuse or breach is capable of remedy, requiring the tenant to remedy the same, and, in any case, to pay reasonable compensation for the misuse or breach, and the tenant has failed to comply within a reasonable time With that request. In the case of Pershad Singh v. Bam Pertab Roy 22 C. 77; 11 Ind. D...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Sen and ors. Vs. Bankim Bihari Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal857,51Ind.Cas.372
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for declaration of a right of way, for removal of an obstruction thereto, for a permanent injunction and for incidental reliefs. The plaintiff set up a claim to use the pathway for several purposes, namely, (a) to obtain, access to a public road across sand dunes which lie towards the north of his homestead, (b) to enable his workmen to bring materials for the repair and construction of houses, (c) to enable his sweepers to remove night soil, and (d) to take his cattle to the field. The defendants denied the existence of the alleged way and pleaded the bar of limitation. The trial Court decreed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that there was ample evidence to prove that the inmates of the house of the plaintiff had, for a period much exceeding 20 years, used the way for access to the sand dunes where they went to answer calls of nature; but he was not satisfied with the evidence as to the user of the pathway by sweepers,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »