Kolkata Court April 1919 Judgments

In Re: Joseph Perry

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal996,54Ind.Cas.478

Rankin J.1. In this case the learned Counsel for the accused has taken objection to the admissibility in evidence of the deposition reduced into writing taken under Section 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. That is a deposition made by the accused himself, the insolvent in the case, and it is tendered against him in this enquiry on the principle that what a man says himself may be put in evidence against him as an admission. Objection has been taken to that, and if I may say so, very properly taken from the point of view of counsel for the accused, that, whereas by statute the public examination of a debtor is, under certain precautions, expressly said to be capable of being used in evidence against him, there is no such careful provision in Section 36 and that on principle the deposition taken under Section 36 ought not to be allowed.2. Now what is the objection to allowing anything that the accused may have said to be put in evidence against him? The first objection that I c...

Jotindra Nath Roy Vs. Isof Golder and Trajlokyanath Ghose

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1919Cal166,53Ind.Cas.19

Newbould, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for recovery of rent, with a prayer in the alternative for assessment of fair and equitable rents and for recovery of rents thus assessed for the period in suit.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act no appeal lies. It appears to me that that Section is not applicable, as this is not merely a suit instituted for recovery of rent, as the plaintiff seeks in the alternative other relief, that is, for assessment of fair and equitable rent. An authority for this view will be found in the case of Lala Dharuk' dhari Lal v. Baburam Ahir 4 lnd. Cas. 745; 10 C. L. J. 629. As regards the merits of the case it is Contended, and tee contention appears to me to be sound, that the lower Courts have erred in law as regards the evidentiary value of certain partition papers under the Estates Partition Act .3. As regards the entries, the learned Subordinate Judge says: 'The Partition Deputy Collect...

Jatindra NaraIn Acharjea Choudhury Vs. Malu Haji

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.969

1. This appeal is by the landlord who made an application under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for a settlement of rent after the final publication of the Record of Rights.2. The respondent who holds the land described in Khatian No. 43 said among other things that he held the land at a lump rental, and that he had been paying the same rent for upwards of twenty years and that he was, therefore, entitled to have his rent regarded as fixed.3. The Courts below are agreed in finding that the respondent's allegations were proved, namely that he did hold the land at a lump rental, and that be bad paid the same rent for upwards of twenty years immediately before the institution of the proceedings, and he was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the presumption given by Section 50 (2) of the Tenancy Act.4. The appellant admits that he cannot challenge these findings in second appeal and he limits his appeal to the ordering portion of the judgment of the first Court, which was confirm...

Syed Mohummed RaziuddIn Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta

Court: Kolkata

1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chairman of the Corporation and the, Municipal Magistrate to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside. The order complained of was passed by the Municipal Magistrate on the 23rd December 1918. He has held a certain structure to be a fixture which is liable to be removed under Section 341 of the Calcutta Municipal Act III of 1899 and has directed its demolition under Section 450(3) of that Act. In our opinion it has not been proved that the provisions of Section 341 are applicable to' the structure which is the subject matter of this dispute. The structure in question is a masonry platform which extends in front of the petitioner's building and over a drain in the public street. There is no evidence when this masonry platform was erected. But witnesses have deposed that so far as living memory goes, the masonry platform has been in existence as a part of the building. In order to take advantage of a penal section it is necessary f...

Tejpal Jamunadas Vs. B. Nathmull and Co.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal1059,54Ind.Cas.668

Sanderson, C.J.1. These are two appeals by the appellants from two orders made by Chaudhuri J., on the 13th March, 1919, in respect of two applications which were heard together.2. The facts material to the matters before the Court are as follows:3. A dispute arose between the parties with reference to a contract relating to the purchase of Hessian cloth.4. In pursuance of the terms of the contract, the dispute was referred to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and, on the 14th June, 1918, an award was made in favour of Tejpal Jamunadas.5. On the 22nd July, 1918, the award was remitted to the said Chamber by Greaves J., in order that evidence might be taken. I have not a copy of this order before me, but I understand that no time for making the fresh award was mentioned in the order, and consequently by reason of Section 13(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, the fresh award should have been made within three months after the date of the order remitting the award. Th...

Pravakar Majumdar and anr. Vs. Upendra Nath (Chandra in Vaklautnamah) ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1919Cal592,53Ind.Cas.564

1. The plaintiff appears to have brought, three rent suits in respect of certain holdings, being Suits Nos. 523 of 1907, 525 of 1907 and 529 of 1907, and obtained decrees in all. So far as the holding in Suit No. 523 is concerned, the plaintiff purchased it as decree-holder in 1908 and settled it with a tenant in 1913. Then in respect of the holdings in the two other suits, being three jotes, they were sold in 1910 and bought by the defendant. It appears that in 1911 the plaintiff recognised the purchaser as tenant and recorded his name in his sherista. These three holdings, which are covered by Suits Nos, 525 and 529. were coneolidate into one jote and the plaintiff sued for rent in respect thereof. The defence was that the defendant had not obtained possession of a plot of land in that jote amongst others, a plot measuring 4 bighas and 7 cottahs.2. It was found by the learned Munsif that the plaintiff was in possession of this disputed plot before the defendant's purchase and that af...

Srinath Bose and ors. Vs. Nibaran Chandra Roy and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.945

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for establishment of the plaintiffs' right to, and possession of, the properties in dispute, which are described in the four schedules to the plaint.2. The plaintiffs are the daughter's sons and sole heirs of one Radha Krishna Roy. Radha Krishna left a daughter Sital Moni and the plaintiffs, grandsons, by that daughter. The defendants are the heirs of Ram Kanai and Dinabandhu, who were the brothers of Radha Krishna. The name of one Kumeda Charan Roy, who was the father of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, may be mentioned here. It aopsars that after the death of Radha Krishna, Kumeda charan asserted that he had been adopted by Radha Krishna and laid claim to the estate left by him. In the year 188i, Sital Mini brought a suit for establish ment of her right to a share of the estate as the heiress of her father Radha Krishna. The suit was brought against Kumeda .Charan and the other heirs of Ram Kanai and Dinabandhu. It was contested by Kumeda alone and it a...

Maharajah Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Padma Lochan Banikya an ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1919Cal343,51Ind.Cas.826

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution.2. The plaintiff and the defendants are co-sharers in certain tenures. The superior landlord brought two suits for rent and obtained decrees jointly against the plaintiff and the defendants. The decrees were executed and the tenures were put up to sale. Thereupon the plaintiff paid the in the decretal amount and sued the defer darts for contribution claiming against each a specific sum of money according to his share. The suit has been thrown out by the Courts below, mainly on the ground that as there were two decrees for two different amounts and as the plaintiff satisfied these separately on two different occasions, there were different causes which could not be joined in the same suit.3. Order II, Rule 3(1), Civil Procedure Code, lays down that 'save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of ...

Guru Charan Nandi and ors. Vs. Sarab Ali and Shona Bibi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1919Cal405(2),52Ind.Cas.79

Second Appeal No 2129 of 1917.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and also for enhancement of rent.2. The defendant was entered in the Record of Rights as an occupancy raiyat and not as a raiyat holding at fixed rates.3. The Courts below have disallowed enhancement on the ground that the defendants have been holding at a fixed rent from the time of the Permanent Settlement.4. It appears, however, that there was a Record of Rights in 1899, that is, 17 years before the institution of the present suit. A period of 35 years during which the defendant proved uniform payment of rent covers a period of 18 years before the final publication of the Record of Rights and another period of 17 years subsequent to such Record of Rights5. Section 115 of the Bengal Tenancy Act lays down that when the particulars mentioned in Section 102, clause(b), have been recorded under this chapter in respect of any tenancy, the presumption under Section 50 shall not thereafter appl...

Ektar Sikdar and anr. Vs. Wajuddi Tati and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.722

Walmsley, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession on redemption of a mortgage by way of conditional sale. The plaintiffs are the purchasers of the equity of redemption from the defendant No. 3, the original mortgagor. It may be mentioned that they were also prior mortgagees and that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 deposited the amount of their mortgage in Court. Subsequently after the withdrawal of the deposit the plaintiffs purchased the equity of redemption. There are now two questions before us. The first is with regard to interest. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has cut the interest down from 30 per cent to 12 per cent., referring to certain decisions of this Court. Bat since those case were decided, the decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the oases of Aziz Khan v. Duni Chand 48 Ind. Cas. 933 : 23 C.W.N. 130 : 101 P.R. 1918 : 165 P.W.R. 1918 (P.C.) and LalA Balla Mal v. Ahad Shah 48 Ind. Cas. 1 : 23 C.W.N. 233 : 35 M.L.J. 614 : 16 A.L.J. 90...