Kolkata Court May 1919 Judgments
Ram Chandra Bahardar Vs. Abeda Khatun Sahebani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.562
1. This is a suit on a mortgage executed by defendants Nos. 1,2 and 4. The property mortgaged belongs to defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 2 is her husband's brother. Both the couris have held that defendant No. 3 never executed the document. It is not alleged by the plaintiff that she personally executed the mortgage deed, but he said that the document was executed by defendant No. 4, the husband of the lady, unier a power of-attorney from her. The power -of-attorney was not produced. It was pressed upon the Appellate Court that a remand ought to be granted to give the plaintiff an opportunity to produce and prove it. But having regard to the delay that had taken place in connection with that matter, the Appellate Court did not think fit to grant a remand. That point has again been urged before us. We do not think that we can accede to that prayer. The plaintiff did not take any Steps to have the Sub Registrar examined in respect of that pow...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjilal Monohar Das Vs. Durga Prasad Debiprosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.761
Rankin, J.1. This is a special case for the opinion of the Court upon the rights of buyers and sellers under a contract that was made on the 5th November last year. That was a contract for the sale of 50 tons new crop up-country small grain linseed and by the terms of the contract it is perfectly clear, that the method by which the contract was to be carried out was, by Laving the goods put on rail at the up-country station and transmitted in that manner to the Kidderpore Docks. It appears that the harvesting of this linseed begins in the month of March and that the dispatch of it would, in ordinary circumstances, be commenced in the month of April. Now, at the time the contract was made the position as regards the affreightment of such goods by rail was that all the railway wagons for the purpose were under the control of Government and that, without a certificate from the proper officer of Government, it was impossible to get the goods sent by rail and it was well known to the partie...
Tag this Judgment!Seikh GaziraddIn Manda Vs. Gangaram Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.12
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the lands in dispute, on the allegation that the defendants were under raiyats holding under a lease which had expired. The main defence was that the defendants were not under-raiyats but raiyats and that the plaintiff himself was a tenure holder. The lower Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff was an occupaney raiyat and that the defendant, therefore, was an under raiyat.2. The principal contention of the appellant before us is that the la*er Apsellate Court ought to have held that the interest of the plaintiff was that of a tenure-holder. It is pointed out that the area of the land exceeds 100 bighas and, therefore, the presumption arises that he was a tenure holder, that the kabuliyat itself states that the plaintiff had been holding 75 bighas of land from before and that by the kabuliyat another 50 bighas of land were taken settlement of, the two jamas being consolidated into one of 125 bighas.3. Now in the ka...
Tag this Judgment!Brojabashi Rudra Pal and ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Rudra Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal182,53Ind.Cas.545
Newbould, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants sued the defendants respondents for recovery of khas possession of certain land upon establishment of their raiyati title thereto. The plaintiffs base their title on a raiyati lease of the disputed land granted to them by certain persons who obtained a lease for a term of six years of the Pergannah Gangamandal to which the land in suit appertains. This lease was granted to them by the Official Receiver of the estate. By this lease the lessees covenanted with the lessor, among other things, that they 'will not, save and except for the purpose of granting dur ijara settlements to dur ijaradars or other tenants or persons by means of which the rents of the said Pergannah or the greater portion thereof may be collected as heretofore, assign, underlet nr otherwise part with the possession of the said Pergannah or any part thereof and will not enter into any partnership with any other person or 'persons in respect of the said Pergannah or any part the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal Gothi Vs. Roy Chowdhury Satish Chandra Mustapi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.411
Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal and also a Rule against an order under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act fixing a fair and equitable rent. The only point urged is that the lower Courts acted without jurisdiction in assessing the fair and equitable rent without taking any evidence. It appears, however, that the defendants, although they did not appear at the hearing, filed a statement in which the figures on which fair and equitable rent was assessed were not disputed. These figures were sufficient material for the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Special Judge to come to a finding. Whether that finding is correct and whether the rent assessed u fair and equitable, is a question into which this Court cannot go, if the lower Courts have jurisdiction and I hold that they had jurisdiction.2. Accordingly this appeal must be dismissed and this Rule discharged with costs. No separate Pleader's fee is allowed in the Rule....
Tag this Judgment!Kali Prosunna Basu Roy Choudhury Vs. Sheikh Asgar (Talukdar) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal823,53Ind.Cas.576
Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision in a rent suit. In my opinion, the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies must prevail. 2. The appeal is valued at Bs. 7-11 annas and no question has bean decided whish under session 153, Bengal Fenancy Act, makes a second appeal lie in this Court. It is contended that on the question regarding title to land in dispute, conflicting claims have been decided. The learned Subordinate Judge starts his judgment by stating that he would confine himself to title determination of the question whether the relationship of landlord and , tenant subsists between the plaintiff and the defendants, and it is not necessary for him to enter into the question of title. This itself indicates that no question of. title has been decided. It is true, as pointed out, that at the end of the judgment the learned Subordinate Judge has come to a finding that the pro forma, defendants had been in adverse possession to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsasi Roy and ors. Vs. Bolai Lal Seal and on His Death His Seirs and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.890
1. This suit is for a declaration that the defendant No. 1 had no transferable Kaimi right to the disputed land or any right to construct buildings thereon and that the defendant No. 4 had not acquired any right to construct buildings thereon by the purchase of the leasehold rights said to have been created by defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs also prayed for permanent and ad interim injunctions.2. The plaintiffs are the proprietors of certain lands bearing Touzi Nos. 3, 94 and 3994 A. Their case is that within that Mahal there is a Thika Garkaimi Jama of Rs. 92-11-5 recorded in the plaintiffs' sheristu in the name of late Hara Chandra Lahiri, that out of the said lands a certain quantity was acquired by the Government and that the disputed land is said to be 7 bighas described in Schedule Ga as appertaining to this Jama. It is upon these allegations that the plaintiffs sought relief in this suit.3. Several issues were raised, and it is noticeable that although it was suggested a...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mondal Gochi and ors. Vs. Tarini Chandra Banbrjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.625
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of certain land on establishment of the plaintiff's title. The plaintiff claimed by virtue of a sub-lease for an indefinite period granted by a person having a right of occupancy in the land. The Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that the lease to the plaintiff, in contravention of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, was void. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge of Jessore granted the plaintiff a decree. In my opinion, the learned Munsif was right. The questions as to the validity of a lease granted by a raiyat in contravention of the provisions of Section 85, Clause (2), of the Bengal Tenancy Act are discussed at length in the judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Beachcroft in the case of Chandi Charan Nath v. Samla Bibi 44 Ind. Cas. 254 : 22 C.W.N. 179 : 28 C.L.J. 91. That was a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of my own.2. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that this case can be disting...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Bhowal and anr. Vs. Chandra Kanta Chakrabarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.529
Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision dismissing a suit for recovery of possession of a small piece of land in the town of Dibrugarh, The land in suit is a piece of land between the homesteads of the plaintiffs and the defendant and the dispute between the parties is a boundary dispute. There was a survey and settlement in 1911, in which the boundary between the lands of the two parties was laid down by the settlement authority. In 1915 the Sub-Deputy Collector held an enquiry and found that the defendant had encroached on the plaintiffs' land to the extent of 33 links and that the plaintiffs had encroached on the defendant's land to the extent of 3 links, and the Sub-Deputy Collector referred the plaintiffs to a Civil Court for redress, on the 21st May 1916. Then I find that the parties appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, font whether they made an appeal from the Sub-Deputy Collector's order or put in a fresh application regarding the boundary dispute does not appea...
Tag this Judgment!Aparna Charan Chabri and anr. Vs. Gopi Nath Samanta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal596,53Ind.Cas.567
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent brought by the co sharer landlords. The plaintiffs' case Was that the defendants held 4 bighas of land at a rental of 2 aras and 3.5 mans. The defendants alleged that they held the 2 bighas of land only at a jama of 14 huris. The defendants admittedly held their ancestral jote of 2 bighas at the rent admitted by them, The-dispute between the parties was whether they also held another jots which had formerly belonged to one Sharif Patar and which is said to have been purchased by the defendants in 1296. The Munsif held that the defendants held the lands in bath the jamas and were liable for the full amount of the rent claimed. The lower Appellate Court held that the question relating to the purchased jama was res judicata and modified the Munsil's decree and granted the plaintiffs a decree in accordance with the defendants' admission. In deciding this issue of ret judicata the lower Appellate Court relied on the judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »