Kolkata Court April 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.
Sreemati Kumodini Roy and ors. Vs. Abdul Gani Matabbor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.171
Charles Chitty, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises related to about 3 drones of land comprised in Taluq Gouri Sanker Boily Nath bearing No. 13400/12094 in Mouza Patoli Machnakhali and others. The plaintiffs claimed to be entitled by-virtue of a redemption decree to a 10-annas 8-pies share in the Taluq. The defendant No. 2, who is the contesting defendant here, claimed to be entitled to 3 drones under the 5 annas 4-pies shares in Sikimi Taluqi rights. It appears that one Mahabat Ali Chowdhury owned two-thirds and one Uma Charan Ghose the remaining one-third share of this Taluq. Mahabat Ali and Uma Charan Ghose both mortgaged their rights in the Mahal to Bhecharam, the father of Ram Dayal Pal defendant No. 3. That was on 21st December 1883. They purported to mortgage two-thirds and one-third of the 16 annas. On 6th December 1900 the equity of redemption of Uma Charan, which had passed through several hands, came to Ram Dayal. On 5th February 1901 Ram Dayal granted an Etmam Pat...
Nishi Kanta Dutta and ors. Vs. Shashi Kanta Karmakar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal405(1),52Ind.Cas.19
Asutosh Chandhuri, J.1. The plaintiffs sought to eject the defendants under the following circumstances. The father of defendant No. 1 got a nimhowla right in the lands in suit by a lease dated the 14th of Kartick 1283/20th October 1876. There is a provision in the lease restraining sale of the nimhowla to any other person excepting the lessor. Defendant No. 1 succeeded his father and sold the lands to defendant No. 2 and took a mirash ejara lease under him. The plaintiffs relied upon the above provision restraining alienation and further prayed that the defendant No. 1 might reconvey the property to them upon the receipt of Rs. 40 as provided for in the lease. The defendants contend that the provision in the kabuliyat against alienation is void and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any khas possession. It is admitted that nimhowlas in Backergunj are permanent and heritable tenures. This lease is in respect of agricultural lands and if it was covered by Section 11 of the Bengal T...
Govinda Ram Das and anr. Vs. Agent, East Indian Railway Company, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal419,52Ind.Cas.47
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for damages against the East Indian Railway Company has been dismissed by both the Courts below. It appears that on 5th October 1914 Tilak Chand Piramal at Kutni consigned to the plaintiffs at Asansole 51 tins of ghee and signed a risk note in form H in respect of them. The plaintiffs' case was that On arrival of the tins at Asansole on 13th October 1914 when they went to take delivery it was found that oat of the 51 tins of ghee 25 were empty, 25 were full, and 1 was leaking. The plaintiffs wanted to take the 23 tins and give a qualified receipt, but this the Railway Company very properly refused to allow. The consequence was that the ghee remained for sometime before delivery was taken and eventually the full tins and the empty tins were sold. The plaintiffs, on 23rd July 1915, filed the present suit for damages, Rs. 1,099. The only point made by the plaintiffs in this Court is that on 14th July 1916 the second plaintiff was not allow...
Kanok Dasi Vs. Srihari Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal404,52Ind.Cas.269
Asutosh Chowdhury, J.1. The plaintiff claims title by purchase from defendant No. 3 on 20th Jaisto 1319/10th June 1912 defendant No. 1 on the other hand also claims on the strength of a purchase by his father from defendant No. 3's certificated guardian in April 1905. It has been found by both the Courts that the sale by the certificated guardian was not in accordance with the Court's sanction. They are right in holding that the sale. was, therefore, voidable. The sale, however, is good until it is avoided. Defendant No. 3 attained majority in Jaisto 1318/May-June 1911. No action for repudiating the acts of the guardian was taken by him within three years after attainment of majority under Article 44 of the Limitation Act. Defendant No. 3 could not have instituted such a suit after the lapse of three years. Defendant No. I has been in possession of the property ever since his purchase. In the conveyance in favour of the plaintiff there is no reference to the sale by the guardian. I thi...
Umesh Chandra Dass Vs. Sikdar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal408,52Ind.Cas.699
Charles Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit brought by him for a declaration of his auction-purchase right in the land in dispute and for khas possession. The plaintiff claimed the land as being Maghi Dag No. 323:1 The defendants said that they knew nothing about the Maghi Dags, but that they had been in possession of the land as forming part of Cadastral Survey Dag No. 2368 under Nil Krishna Roy and others for a period of over thirty years; in other words, they maintained that they had acquired occupancy rights in the land. The Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that it was not proved that the land fell within the Mahal purchased by the plaintiff. That Ending was reversed by the learned Subordinate Judge, but in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff as to his title the Judge declined to give the plaintiff khas possession of any portion of the land which should be found to correspond with any portion of Cadastral Survey Dag No. 236...
Pramatha Nath Barat Vs. P.C. Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal581,54Ind.Cas.63
Chaudhuri and Newbould, JJ.1. The learned Advocate-General stating that he cannot support the order, we direct a fresh enquiry into this matter.2. The learned Advocate-General very fairly states that he finds great difficulty in upholding the contention that a police-officer in Calcutta, after suspension, continues to be a police-officer. He also finds difficulty in supporting the contention that the Circular relied upon is authorized by law. Having regard to the note made by the Commissioner of Police that Marsden had nothing to do with the case, the complainant withdraws his charge against him. Order is made to the effect that the case is only to proceed against the Deputy Commissioner, Rai P.C. Lahiri Bahadur, and Manik Lal Sadhu. We also understand from complainants counsel that he will consider whether he should proceed against Manik Lal Sadhu, having regard to the fact that he was merely an inferior police-officer who was bound to carry out the orders of his superior.3. The learn...
Mahamed Rasek and ors. Vs. Tahidunnessa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.33
1. This is a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside on such terms as to this Court may seem proper, or such other order passed as to this Court may seem fit.2. The order made by the Court below was that an inventory of the moveable properties claimed by the plaintiff be prepared by the Nazir after notice to the Pleaders of all parties. This Order was passed upon an application purporting to have been made under Order XXXIX, Rule 7 (1) (a), which provides that the Court may, on the application of any party to a suit and on such terms as it thinks fit, make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of any property which is the subject-matter of such suit or as to which any question may arise therein.3. The order made by the Court below was not for preservation or inspection of any property but for making an inventory of certain moveable properties which are described in the schedule to the plaint. So far as they a...
Kamal Krishna, Barnikya and ors. Vs. Peary Mohon Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal18,53Ind.Cas.553
1. The facts of this case are a little complicated, but when they are clearly understood there should be no difficulty in deciding the case. As stated in the plaint, 3 Kanis 2 Karas of land, including 1 Kani 14. 5 Gandas, formed a Taluq standing in the names of Mati Bibiand Banu Bibi at an annual Jama of Rs. 17-8. The predecessor of the plaintiffs took a settlement of the 1 Kara 14. 5 Gandas in Topa interest (which is an under-tenure) at an annual Jama of Rs. 9. That was in July 1854. Subsequently the Taluq was sold by auction and Becha Gazi purohased it. The predecessor of the plaintiffs purchased a share of that Taluq, i.e., 1 Kani 14 Gandas, from Becha Gazi in November 1862. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the heirs of Becha Gazi and defendant No. 5 is the transferee from defendants Nos. 2 to 4, The proprietary rights having been sold, and bought by Kamal Krishna Banik defendant No. 1, he brought a suit for rent against the heirs of Becha Gazi and obtained a decree. He threatened to brin...
Muralidhar Aditya Vs. Radha Mohan Hazra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.552
Woodroffe, j.1. In these two appeals it has been contended that the Courts below should have held that the Record of Rights having been finally published under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of the tenancy in suit, the defendants were barred by the provisions of Section 115 of that Act from claiming the presumption which is mentioned in Section 50 of the same Act.2. The learned District Judge bad based his decision upon the case of Maharaja Radha Kishore Manikya Bahadur v. Umed Ali (12 C.W.N. 904). But having regard to the Pull Bench decision in Pirthi Chand Lal Chowdhry v. Basarat Ali 3 Ind Cas. 449 (F.B.) ; 37 C. 30 ; 13 C.W.N. 1149 ; 10 C.L.J. 343 and to the decision which is reported as Harihar Persad Bajpai v. Ajub Misir (22 Ind. Cas. 604 ; 45 C. 980), we think that the learned Judge's view of the law cannot be supported, and we, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree and remit the case to him for re-hearing. On the rehearing the matter to which the learned J...
Basanta Kumar Chowdhuri and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.273
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of two fisheries on establishment of the plaintiff's right thereto.2. These fisheries are called Mahal Samil fisheries and are governed by the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, I of 1886. These two fisheries were let out by Government in periodic Mahal Samil Settlement many years ago, and it is found that the plaintiffs held under the condition that the fisheries should not be transferred without the permission of the Deputy Commissioner. It appears that these fisheries were sub-let by the plaintiffs in 1908 to certain persons. The Deputy Commissioner in 1910 called on the plaintiffs to show cause why the lease under which they held, should not be cancelled. On the 23rd January 1911, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the lease. The plaintiff's case was that they were land holders within the meaning of the Regulation and that they had power to transfer the lease but, as a matter of fac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »