Kolkata Court March 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.
Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. Narendra Chandra Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal379,(1919)ILR46Cal956
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rangpore, dated the 31st August 1916. The plaintiff sued for rent first of all, for 9 months of the year 1318 and for the whole of the year 1319. That part of the claim has been decreed in full and no question arises in this appeal with regard to it. The other part of' the claim was for the years 1320 and 1321 and the rent in respect thereof was sued for on the basis of a compromise-decree. That compromise-decree was entered into in a former rent suit which the plaintiff brought for the years 1316, 1317 and the first 3 months of the year 1318. What had been the original state of affairs was this:--There had been a demise to the defendant of 1700 bighas of land, the rent being calculated at 12 annas a bigha, namely, Rs. 1,175. In the former rent suit, the defendant said that he was entitled to an abatement of rent and the reasons why he said that he was entitled to an abatem...
The Hon'ble Maharaja Manendra Chandra Nandi Vs. Narendra Chandra Lahir ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.13
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rangpur, dated the 31st August 1916. The plaintiff sued for rent, first of all, for 9 months of the year 1318 and for the whole of the year 1319. That part of the claim has been decreed in full, and no question arises in this appeal with regard to it. The other part of the claim was for the years 1320 and 1321 and the rent in respect thereof was sued for on the basis of a compromise decree. That compromise decree was entered into in a former rent suit which the plaintiff brought for the years 1316, 1317 and the first 3 months of the year 1318. What had been the original state of affairs was this. There had been a demise to the defendant of 1,700 bighas of land, the rent being calculated at 12 annas a bigha, namely, Rs. 1,175. In the former rent suit, the defendant said that he was entitled to an abatement of rent and the reasons why he said that he was entitled to an...
Ambica Nath Roy and anr. Vs. Moulvi Wajedali Khan Pani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.822
1. This Rule relates to certain proceedings which were initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings terminated with an order made by the Magistrate under Section 146 attaching the land which was the subject of dispute between the parties.2. The Rule is directed against that order and it was issued on the ground that the Magistrate had not applied his mind judicially to the evidence bearing on the question of possession. The Magistrate is only entitled to make an order Under Section 146 under the following conditions: firstly, if he decides that at the date of the order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, initiating the proceedings, none of the parties was in actual possession, or secondly, if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession. In the present case the Magistrate has not found definitely that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute. He says that' it is very doubtful whet...
Ramesh Chandra Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal895
Richardson, J.1. The appellant, Ramesh Chandra Das, was tried by the Sessions Judge of Chittagong and a jury on three charges of perjury framed under Section 193 of the Penal Code, The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant on each charge to three years' rigorous imprisonment, directing at the same time that the sentences should run concurrently.2. The charges relate to a will bearing the date the 19th August, 1913, alleged to have been executed by the late Dr. Rajani Kanta Das Gupta who died on the 28th August 1913. He left him surviving five daughters and two brothers, Ramesh Chandra Das, the appellant, and Mahendra Lal Das, a pleader, who died on the 8th April, 1914. of the daughters, the eldest only was married at the time of her father's death; three have since been married and the youngest is still unmarried.3. The valuation of the estate of the deceased accepted by the Collector for purposes of duty was Rs. 32,715, from which Rs. 4,250 ...
Chandi Charan Mitra Vs. Haribola Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal199,(1919)ILR46Cal951,51Ind.Cas.215
Fletcher and Cuming, JJ.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rangpur dated the 29th January, 1917, reversing the decision of the Second Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of certain lands on declaration of title. The plaintiff alleged that he had purchased the property under two deeds. Now, the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below found that the property was debuttar, that the plaintiff's vendor was the shebait and that there was no legal necessity for the alienations. The first point in the case is 'Is the property debuttar'? The document under which, the endowment is said to have been established is before us. It conveys to one Santiram Bairagi the property for the purpose of the sheva of God, and Santiram Bairagi is allowed to enjoy the property from generation to generation. The point that has been urged is that this deed of endowment is void for, uncertainty. It is said ...
Panchanon Bose and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.881
Richardson, J.1. The petitioner Umed Ali has been convicted under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Eta. 400 or in default to undergo a further period of six months' rigorous imprisonment; the remaining six petitioners have been convtcted under Section 147, Indian Penal Code: the sentences passed upon three of them are the same as the sentence passed upon Umed Ali. The remaining three have been sentenced each to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to undergo a farther period of three months' rigorous imprisonment. The Rule called upon the District Magistrate of Faridpore to show cause why the convictions and sentences should not be set aside on the ground that regard being had to the facts found and the circumstances in evidence, the Sessions Judge errad in law in coming to the conclusion that possession of the land in question was with the Khas Mahal autho...
Bijoy Krishna Mukherjee Vs. Surendra Nath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal891
Fletcher, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the transfer of a portion of a nontransferable occupancy holding is an encumbrance within the meaning of Section 161 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The decisions of this Court seem to be quite clear that it is not. The ruling in the case of Abdul Rahman Chowdhuri v. Ahmadar Rahman (1915) I.L.R.43 Calc. 558 is exactly in point. A similar view has been taken in the High Court at Patna in the case of Ramehswar Singh Bahadur v. Raghunandan Khabas (1916) 1 Pat. L.J. 403. On Section 86 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, there is also a decision of this Court [Tamiznddin Khan v. Khoda Nawaz Khan (1909) 14 C.W.N. 229] which shows that the sale of a portion of a non-transferable occupancy holding is not an encumbrance, within the meaning of Section 86, Sub-sections (6) and (7) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The only difficulty that is raised is by the decision in Chandra Sakai v. Kalli Prosanno Chuckerbutty (1895) I.L.R. 23 Calc. 254. That is ...
Aminaddi and ors. Vs. Tarini Charan Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.673
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of newly formed Chur land as accretion to the plaintiffs' raiyati jote land, and for mesne profits.2. The defence was that the land was reformation in situ of land which the defendants held under the Government in a Government Khas Mahal, and which had been submerged in the river.3. It appears that the land was submerged in the year 1672 and re appeared in 190 5. After the reformation, the defendants took possession of the land and they have been in possession since then.4. A Commissioner appointed by the Court of first instance found that the disputed land was included in Dags Nos. 143 and 144 of the map of 1876. The land was identifiable and in fact it had formed on the site of the land of the Potta (Exhibit B) under which the land had bean let out to defendants in the year 1876. Having regard to these facts, the Court of first instance dismissed the suit.5. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the rights of the def...
Abdul Hashim Vs. Amar Krishna Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal193,(1919)ILR46Cal887,53Ind.Cas.121
1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendant No. 4 against the decision of the learned first Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 31st August 1917. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover possession of certain lands. What happened is this: Part of the interest of the plaintiffs was derived from a purchase from the Official Receiver appointed under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The names of the insolvents were Rahim Bux, Mahomad Yakub and Abdul Rauf, the insolvents being entitled to a 6.annas 9-gundas 1-kara share in the property sued for. The plaintiffs did not procure any conveyance from the Official Receiver in Insolvency. They rested their title on the orders made by the Court in its Insolvency Jurisdiction. It is quite dear that the title of the plaintiffs in the 6-annas 9-gandas 1-kara share requires to be perfected by a proper conveyance executed by the Official Receiver and duly registered.2. There is nothing to exempt a conveyance by a trustee in ...
Kripa Sindhu Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal250,51Ind.Cas.285
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the transfer of a portion of a non-transferable occupancy holding is an encumbrance within the meaning of Section 161 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The decisions of this Court seem to be quite clear that it is not. The ruling in the case of Abdul Rahman Chowdhuri v. Ahmadar Rahman 31 Ind. Cas. 554 ; 43 C. 558 ; 19 C.W.N. 1217 ; 22 C.L.J. 356 is exactly in point. A similar view has been taken in the High Court of Patna in the case of Rameshwar Singh v. Raghunandan Khawas 38 Ind. Cas. 337 ; 1 P.L.J. 403 ; 2 P.H.W. 364. On Section 86 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, there is also a decision of this Court. Tamizuddin Khan v. Khoda Nawaz Khan 5 Ind. Cas. 116 ; 14 C.W.N. 229 ; 11 C.L.J. 16 which shows that the sale of a portion of a nontransferable occupancy holding is not an encumbrance within the meaning of Section 86, Sub-sections (6) and (7), of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The only difficulty that is raised is by the decision ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »