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.
Girish Chandra Mondal and ors. Vs. Narendra Nath Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal342,52Ind.Cas.759
1. The defendant No. 1 purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding from the tenant in the year 1293. The landlord, however, sued the tenant for arrears of rent and obtained a decree in the year 1901. In 1902 the defendant No. 1, who had purchased the holding from the tenant as stated above, paid salami for mutation of names and he was recognised as tenant by the landlord in 1902. Subsequently in the year 1904 the landlord put the decree which he had obtained in the year 1901 against the tenant into execution and in the sale which followed, the holding was purchased by defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 3 got the holding by conditional Bale from the defendant No. 2. The plaintiff obtained a lease from the defendant No. 3 and brought a suit for recovery of possession on establishment of his title. It was contended before us on behalf of the appellant that after the defendant No. 1's purchase had been recognised by the landlord, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the landl...
Gober Sheikh and ors. Vs. AlipuddIn Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.356
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for declaration of title to, and recovery of possession of, two small plots of land appertaining to a big jote of 960 bighas.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suits. On appeal to the lower Appellate Court, that decree was reversed and the suits were decreed. The defendant has appealed to this Court.3. The questions raised in this appeal are, first, whether there was an abandonment of the jote by the plaintiff's predecessor, secondly, whether the decision in the rent suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant No, 1 operates as res judicata; and thirdly, whether the claim is barred by special limitation contained in Section 27 of Act VIII of 1869.4. The first question, namely, the question of abandonment arises in this way. Four brothers Manuddi, Kalamdi, Sanabdi and Bajaruddi held a certain jote consisting of 960 bighas under the Raja of Gouripore, defendant No. 3. It is found that the jote was their ancestral jote, that th...
Dinabandhu Jana Vs. Durgaprasad Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal1041
Mookerjee, Chitty and Walmsley, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of a Division Court of two Judges who were equally divided in opinion in an Appeal from Original Decree.2. On the 5th August, 1911, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against his three brothers for partition of joint properties and for incidental reliefs. It appears that two days previously the parties had entered into an agreement to refer the matters in controversy to the arbitration of three persons mentioned in the document and to abide by their decision. The defendant in his written statement urged that the suit was not maintainable in view of this agreement of arbitration. The Subordinate Judge held that Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act did not operate as a bar, as the institution of the suit did not constitute by itself a refusal by the plaintiff to perform the contract of arbitration. In support of this view, reference was made to the dec...
Upendra Nath Ghose and on His Death the Executrix and Executors Vs. An ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal839(2),52Ind.Cas.406
Asutosh Chowdhury, J.1. The only point raised by the appellants in this case is as to whether Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is limited to questions between landlords and tenants.2. It is argued that the Revenue Court and the first Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of disputed title between the landlords and the occupants of the holding, which the landlords wanted to be assessed and which is within the ambit of their estate. So far as Section 102 of the Act is concerned, Clause (j) clearly provides an entry to be made in respect of land if claimed to be held rent-free, whether or not the 'occupant' is entitled to hold the land without payment of rent. Section 105 (2) gives a right to the Zemindar to apply within the time thereby limited for settlement of rent. In that very section reference is made under Section 102 (j) including the case of the occupants of any land. Section 105A (a) and (b) refer to questions whether the land is or is not liable to pa...
Srimanta Kumar Chakrabarty and ors. Vs. Sabar Ali Howladar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.702
Asutosh Chaudhuri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of a tenure in the possession of the defendants. The tenure was created in the year 1233. The superior talukdar granted a howla pattah to the predesessor in interest of the defendants, which is Exhibit A. It was in respect of 4 1/2 kanis of land at the rental of Rs. 2 per kani of Rs 9 sicca. The howla right was made expressly hereditary.2. There is no specific clause in the patlah about the fixity of rent. The defendants have paid at the rate of Rs. 9 sicca all this time. From that the learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the rent is to be considered as moharari. He has relied upon the case in Purna Chandra Ghose v. Collector of Khulna 17 C.W.N. cc viii (208) and the case of Ram Dayal Giri v. Midnapur Zemindary Co., Ltd. 7 Ind. Cas. 785 : 15 C.W.N. 263. As regards the first case it is based upon a finding that the...
Dinabandhu Jana Vs. Durga Prasad Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.80
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of a Division Court of two Judges who were equally divided in opinion in an appeal from original decree.2. On the 5th August 1911, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff respondent against his three brothers for partition of joint properties and for incidental reliefs. It appears that two days previously the parties had entered into an agreement to refer the matters in controversy to the arbitration of three persona mentioned in the document and to abide by their decision. The defendant in his written statement urged that the suit was not maintainable in view of this agreement of arbitration. The Subordinate Judge held that Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act did not operate as a bar, as the institution of the suit did not constitute by itself a refusal by the plaintiff to perform the contract of arbitration. In support of this view reference was made to the decision of Wilson, J., in Koomud Chunde...
Abdul Ajij Abdulla Vs. Yakub Abdul Gani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.433
Charles Chitty, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor, and the only point for our determination is whether the decree holder's right to execute his decree is barred by limitation.2. On 5th December 1910 the decree was passed by the Chief Court of Lower Burma for a sum of Rs. 5,000 and odd.3. On 17th March 1913 that Court ordered notice to issue to the judgment-debtor under Order XXI, Rule 22.4. The notice was sent to Chittagong for service but was not served for want of an identifier.5. On 23rd December 1913 the decree-holder applied to execute the decree but withdrew that application on 5th January 1914.6. On 9th August 1915 he made a third application, on 29th September 1915 a fourth, and on 12th January 1916 the fifth and present application.7. Of these notice of the last only was served on the judgment-debtor, who now comes in and pleads limitation.8. The question is whether the application of 17th March 1913 saves limitation. It is argued for the appellant that it was not ...
Fong Kun Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal820
Richardson, J.1. The petitioner, Fong Kun, has been convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act (I of 1875) of being in possession of contraband opium and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. A railway receipt was traced to the possession of the petitioner which covered a parcel consigned to him by a correspondent in Assam. A letter addressed to the petitioner advising him of the despatch of the parcel was recovered at the same time. In that letter the contents of the parcel were described as 'five numbers.' The parcel was subsequently opened and found to contain five seers of opium. The circumstances leave no room for doubt that the petitioner was trafficking in smuggled opium.2. It was held in Kashi Nath Bania v. Emperor (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calc. 557, that in such a case, the consignee knowing that the parcel had been sent to him and that it contained opium, the possession of the railway receipt constituted possession of the opium within the meaning of Section 9 of the Opiu...
Fort Gloster Jute Manufacturing Co. Vs. Chandra Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal978
Mookerjee and Walmsley, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for establishment of title to land. The claim was dismissed by the trial Court, whereupon the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. This was heard on the 6th May, 1915 by Mr. Asutosh Ghose, first Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, who reserved judgment. On the 29th May 1915, Mr. Ghose wrote, signed and dated his judgment. It appears that during a portion of every month, the first Subordinate. Judge had to discharge his judicial duties in another station in the district. While Mr. Ghose was thus absent from the headquarters, the judgment was delivered on the 31st May, 1915, by Mr. U.B. Mookerjee, the second Subordinate Judge, who was in charge of the first Court during the temporary absence of Mr. Ghose. The decree was drawn up in due course and was signed by Mr. Ghose on the 4th June 1915, but as required by Order XX, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code bore the date when the judgment was pronounced, that is, the 31st May,...
Mahammad Kazem Ali Vs. Jorabdi Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR46Cal986
Richardson and Shams-ul-Huda, JJ.1. The opposite parties in this case were convicted by the Magistrate of offences under Sections 423 and 193 of the Penal Code and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. On appeal they were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner, the complainant in the case, then obtained this Rule calling upon them to show cause why the acquittal should not be set aside.2. The Magistrate found, in accordance with the allegations made by the petitioner, that the opposite parties had executed and registered a document purporting to be a kabuliat in respect of certain land which contained recitals designedly false. The document stated that the petitioner and his fall brothers and the other maliks of the land had demanded a kabuliat from the opposite parties, and that the kabuliat had been executed in compliance with that demand. The petitioner denied that he or his full brothers had ever demanded or accepted the kabuliat, and he farther asserted that he and his brot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »