Kolkata Court May 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.
Poran (Chandra) Mitia (Metta in Vakalutnamah) and anr. Vs. Indra Seni ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.752
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs are entiled to recover the lands which were surrendered by them in favour of the landlord and which the latter settled with the defendants.2. The land constituted a raiyati holding, and though is was held under a lease, it was not for a fixed period. Under Section Clause (1), therefore, the raiyat could surrender the holding. He did in fact surrender it and the surrender was accepted by the landlord.3. There is no doubt that a surrender can be effected without an instrument at all see the cases of Khankar Abdur Rahman v. Alt Hofez 28 C. 256 : 5 C.W.N. 351 and Brojonath Sarma v. Maheswar Gahani 46 Ind. Cas. 100 : 28 C.L.J. 220. This proposition is not disputed. But the learned Pleader for the appellant contends that as the original lease was a registered one, the surrender must, under the provisions of Section 92, proviso 4, of the Evidence Act, also be a registered instrument. He relies upon the case of Sarat Chandra Sin...
Surendra Nath Manna Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.778
Walmsley, J.1. The petitioner Surendra Nath Manna has been bound down under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code in his own bond of Rs. 800 with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 300 each to be of good behaviour for three years.2. It appears that there were numerous dacoities in the neighbourhood of petitioner's village in the year 1915. One of these dacoities was committed at Rajipur in December and a man named Bahir Das Bagdi was arrested; he made a confession implicating the petitioner, and the latter was arrested some time in January 1916; he was committed to the Sessions, and in February 1917 he was acquitted by this Court on a reference under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, being made by the Sessions Judge. The same Bahir Das Bagdi named the petitioner as an associate in a dacoity at Shamserpur, which took place on January 19, 1916: and the petitioner was committed to the Sessions on that charge also: be was acquitted in June 1916.3. In May 1918 there was a dacoity commi...
Sheikh Mansur Vs. Brahmamayee Brahmani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.541
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession. The first Court dismissed the suit, holding that the defendant was an occupancy raiyat of the land and could not be ejected. The lower Appellate Court held that the defendant's position was that of a labourer or servant under the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge in deciding the appeal also held that if it could be found that the defendant came into possession of the land as a tenant, he was holding the land as a raiyat and was, therefore, not liable to be evicted from the land. The defendant in this case is admittedly a settled raiyat in the village and consequently, as held by the lower Courts, if he came into possession of the land as a tenant he at once acquired the right of occupancy and was not liable to ejectment. The document under which the plaintiff came into possession is a registered kabuliyat in the following terms: 'To2. The worthy of remembrances Srijukta Brahmama...
Manmatha Nath Kar and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.718
1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy act relating to two plots of land, one measuring 303 bighis 2 cottas 4 chittaks and the other measuring 9 bighats 16 cottas 9 chittaks. The former is claimed by the plaintiffs as an occupancy holding and the latter as their lakheraj.2. The plaintiffs were recorded as tenure-holders in respect of the first plot of land and the Second plot was entered as mil land in the Record of Rights and the rent was settled on the basis of the plaintiffs being tenure-holders. The plaintiffs prayed in this suit for a declaration that they were occupancy raiyats and not tenunre-holders in respect of the first plot of land, that the assessment of rent under Section 7 of the Bengal Tenancy act was wrong and that the original rent was fair and equitable and that the second plot (9 bighas and odd) is lakheraj.3. The Court of first instance found that the second plot of land was lakheraj, that the first plot of land constituted an ...
Ananda Chandra Pal Vs. Srimati Asrab Bhanu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal369(1),51Ind.Cas.852
1. It is found that the holding sought to be attached and sold in execution of the decree for money is not transferable.2. It is contended, however, that the judgment-debtor set up a distinction between kaimi raiyati and ordinary raiyati and it was the case of the judgment-debtor that the holding was not kaimi raiyati. Kaimi raiyati does not necessarily import fixity of rent, and the mere fact that the distinction was set up by the judgment debtor between kaimi raiyati and ordinary raiyati cannot estop him from showing that his holding was merely an ordinary occupancy holding. The Judge has taken into consideration the fact of the previous transfer and the statements contained in the deeds of sale, and has come to the conclusion that the holding is non transferable.3. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs, one gold mohur....
The Chairman of the Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Pagli and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.223
Walmsley, J.1. This is an application made on behalf of the Chairman of the Calcutta Corporation against an order passed by the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta acquitting two persons of an offence under Section 495 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. That section provides that no person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of human food or drink which is not of the nature, substance or Quality of the article demanded by such purchaser. It is alleged in this case that the accused persons sold to the Food Inspector as tea-dust some substance which, on analysis, was found not to contain any tea. When the case came on for trial the learned Magistrate, without examining the witnesses or the accused, acquitted the latter on the ground that tea-dust does not come within the purview of the words 'article of human food or drink.' He wrote a judgment which shows that he had in his mind the words of the learned Judges who decided the case of Hinde v. Allmond 82 J. P. 151. That jud...
Kshetra Nath Adhikari and ors. Vs. Durgapada Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.902
1. These two suits have had a chequered career. They were instituted in October 1909 and the judgment of the trial Court was delivered in September 1910. On appeal to this Court a' remand order was made in May 1916. The successor of the District Judge who heard the appeal on remand delivered his judgment in February 1918 upholding the decision of the trial Court, except in respect of certain properties, namely, plots Nos. 1 to 13 of schedule 'Ka'. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 9 and 11 to 13 are the appellants before us. The plaintiffs are the three sons of one Ramdayal Mandal. Two of them instituted one suit and the third the other. The properties in suit belonged to him. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the original suits found that Ramdayal became indebted and in execution of a decree against him one Pratap Chandra Hazra purchased these properties but Ramdayal persuaded him and his brother, who was joint with him, to return those properties in consideration of a payment of...
Dakshayani Dassi Vs. Amrita Lal Ghose Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.779
1. This appeal relates to the construction of the Will in suit. The testator, Nobokrishna Ghose died in Aghran 1268. At the date of the Will and of the testator's death his family consisted of his wife, Sreemali Dasimoni Dasi, and two daughters, Kurani, a widow, and Bhuban Mohini Dasi, a married woman whose husband was then living. Kurani had a son of the name of Nibaran Chandra Sir then living, the husband of the plaintiff in the suit oat of which this appeal arises. There were also living at that time the testator's younger brother Ramratan Ghose and his nephew Harish Chandra Ghosh, son of a predeceased brother la war Chandra Ghose. The Will recites that the testator was in joint possession of his landed and ancestral properties with his co-sharers, referring to his brother and nephew, The following are material portions of the Will:2. 'I have my wife Sreemati Dasimoni Dasi and my two daughters, of whom the first, Kurani Dasi, is a widow and has a son named Nibaran Chandra bar living...
Mahammed Emartulla Sircar Vs. Mahammbd Didar Bux Sircar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.127
1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of rent for the period in suit, on the allegation that the rent claimed from the principal defendant, the tenant, was payable to the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants as co-sharers who used jointly to realise same, bat inasmuch as the pro forma defendants had not joined with the plaintiffs, they had been added as parties.2. The prayer is for a decree against the principal defendant and in the alternative against the pro forma defendants, should it be found that they had realised the plaintiffs' share. The principal defendant denied relationship of landlord and tenant and defendant No, 2 Mahammad Emaratulla Sarkar supported him, on the ground that the land in suit had been purchased by him alone at an execution sale which took place in August 1902. He contended that inasmuch as the sale certificate was in his name, Section 66, Civil Procedure Code, was a bar. We cannot take that view in this case. The object of that sectio...
Kalikesh Chandra Chatiopa Dhya Vs. Jaharullah Mandal Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal230,51Ind.Cas.984
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent based, upon a kabuliyat.2. The kabuliyat was for a term of 10 years. It was stated in the kabuliyat that the rent was fixed at Rs. 76 a year, that there was to be a temporary abatement of Rs. 26, that Rs. 50 would be payable for the term of the kabuliyat, that on the expiry of the term there would be a fresh settlement, that so long as a fresh settlement was not made, the rent was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 76 a year.3. The defence inter alia was to the effect that the stipulation about rashad inserted in the kabuliyat was a penal clause and was never intended to be acted upon.4. It is found that although the term of the lease expired long ago, the defendant went on paying rent at the rate of Rs. 50, which appears to have been entered in the landlord's book as amanat and although the plaintiff's servants pressed the defendant to enter into a fresh settlement, he never demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 76. The Courts below have held under t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »