Kolkata Court June 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.
Bahadur Vs. Bejoy Madhab Alias Bejoy Krishna Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.143
Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Khulna, dated the 22nd December 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover rent. Originally the plaintiff was entitled to a one-fifth share of a certain estate in which the predecessor of the contesting defendant held a tenure. Whilst that condition of affairs existed, the plaintiff brought a suit for his share of the rent, estimating the area of the estate as being about 500 bighds, The result of that suit was that there was a compromise and the compromise was filed in Court, Under the terms of that compromise, the rent was settled at 13 annas 12 1/2 gandas per bigha and the total rent was fixed at Rs. 68 odd. A decree was drawa up in accordance with the terms of the compromise in these terms: 'It is ordered that a decree be passed for Rs. 3 2-11-3 against the tenant-defendant and that the annual renta...
Barkat Ali and anr. Vs. Das (Dost) Kazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal117,53Ind.Cas.260
Newbould, J.1. The plaintiffs brought this suit for declaration of their occupancy right in 8-annas share of a certain piece of land and for joint possession thereof with defend-ants Nos. 1 to 8.2. It is found that the land in suit originally belonged to one Ram Gopal. Rani Gopal died leaving two sons Sarat Chandra and Ishan Chandra, Sarat Ghandra had two sons, Mohim defendant No. 9 and Sris defendant No. 10. Ishan had also two sons, Kailash defendant No. II and Nibaran defendant No 12. Ram Gopal left a Will and by that Will his property descended not to his sons but to his grandsons in equal shares. In May 1907 the plaintiffs obtained settlement of the 8 annas interest from the two grandsons of Rim Gopal defendant Nos. 9 and 10. About this time a money decree was obtained against the two sons, Sarat and Ishan In execution of that decree the tenure which had belong ed to Ram Gopal was attached as belonging to his sons, and his grandsons preferred a claim which was rejected. The whole t...
Annada Prasanna Sen Vs. Somoruddi Mirdha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.839
Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings, his contention being that the application for execution by the decree-holder is barred by limitation. The decision of this appeal depends entirely on the answer to the question whether an application by a decree-holder to be put in possession of property purchased by him at a sale in execution of his decree, is an application to the Court to take a step-in-aid of execution within the meaning of Clause 5 of Article 182 of the First Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. Both the lower Courts, relying on the decisions of this Court in Sariatoolla v. Raj Kumar 27 C. 709 : 4 C.W.N. 681 and Pran Krishna v. Juramoni 1 Ind. Cas. 430 : 13 C.W.N. 694 have answered the question in the affirmative. For the appellant it is contended that an application by a decree-holder to be put in possession of property after a sale by the Court is made by him in his capacity as auction-purchaser and not as decree-holder and...
Hem Chandra Chowdhury Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.758
1. These two appeals ere directed against the fame award made by the Land Acquisition Judge of Pabna and Bogra in respect of lands acquired for public purposes. Appeal No. 13 of 1918 has been preferred by the Secretary of State on the ground that the sum awarded is excessive and has been calculated on an erroneous principle. Appeal No, 20 of 1918 has been preferred by the claimant on the ground that the sum awarded is insufficient. We are clearly of opinion that there is no foundation for the appeal of the claimant. Reliance has been placed upon conveyances-of lands which have no similarity to the lands acquired; and we cannot possibly enhance the amount of compensation on the basis of those transactions. The really substantial appeal is that preferred by the Secretary of State. The Senior Government Pleader has contended that the award as made by (he Judge is based on unsound principles. The land when acquired was vacant. But both the Collector and the Land Acquisition Judge have assu...
Prasanno Kumar Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. Krishna Singha Sarma and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal233,53Ind.Cas.202
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, the only point in dispute between the parties being the rate of rent payable. The plaintiffs alleged that the rental was Rs. 28-6-13. The contesting defendants alleged that it was Rs. 27-0-5 pies. The Munsif decided in the defendants' favour. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed that decision and decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants' case is supported by the Record of Rights and also by a cess return. As regards the Record of Rights the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the presumption arising therefrom has been rebutted by the evidence of certain rent decrees. These rent decrees are evidence as to the rate of rent payable but do not operate as res judicata as held by the lower Appellate Court. As regards the road cess return the learned Subordinate Judge remarks: 'The admission in the road cess return may well be explained away.' But how it can be explained away, he does not state. Th...
Manmohan Singha Roy and ors. Vs. Bbnode Behari Dubey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.248
Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal against an order holding that the appellants' suit was not maintainable. The plaintiffs as proprietors of 8 annas share of a superior interest in certain land sued the defendants originally for ejectment, but finally amended' their plaint so that the suit was one in which the only relief claimed was an assessment of fair and equitable rent. The plaintiffs' co sharers were joined as co defendants and the allegation was that the principal defendant was a holder of a service tenure, that he discontinued to serve the plaintiffs and that, therefore, he was liable to pay rent for the land of his holding. Both the lower Courts have relied en the decision of this Court in the case of Gholam Mohiuddin Hossein v. Khairan 31 C. 786; C. W. N. 325. I am unable to see how the facts of this case can be distinguished from the facts of that case. There it was held, firstly, that the co-sharer landlord was not competent to obtain a partial ejectment of the tenants to the...
Abirjan Bewa Vs. Sheikh Kabil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.542
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh, dated the 14th July 1916, reversing the decision of the Munsif of Iswarganj. The plaintiff, a Muhammadan widow, brought the suit against the defendant, who is her deceased husband's nephew, first, for a declaration that the bil ewaz hebanama in respect of one ara of land mentioned in the plaint was without any consideration, nail and void, ineffectual, fraudulent and spurious, and, secondly, for a declaration that the plaintiff having revoked the conditional gift in respect of the one ara comprised in the Schedule to the plaint covered by the said hebanama, the defendant acquired no right thereto. The case as set out in the plaint is not open to doubt. The plaintiff's case is this, that she had executed and intended to execute a deed of gift in favour of the defendant--her deceased husband's nephew, but the gift was to be subject to the con...
Sworup Manual and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representatives Pan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.731
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Khulna, dated the 16th November 1916, affirming the decision of the second Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought for the purpose of establishing the plaintiff's title and recovery of possession of certain land. The question raised at the hearing of the present appeal has nothing to do with the merits of the case at all. The point taken is this; on the 9th September 1915, the trial of the case was proceeding in the Court of first instance and late in the afternoon--although I am told by my learned colleague that it is common in the Court of the Munsif--the plaintiff's case was closed as regards evidence and the case of the defendant was reached. According to the statement of the learned Vakil for the appellant, one of the junior Pleaders who had been engaged by the defendant had left the Court at that time for the purpose of attending a certain revenue case. ...
Jarip Sardar and anr. Vs. Jogendra Nath Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.719
Shamsul Huda, J.1. The defendants Nos. 3 to 6 are the appellants before us. The plaintiff brought his suit for a declaration that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have no ganti interest in the disputed Mehal, that the entry in the Record of Rights was incorrect and that such entry, so far a it recognises the existence of a ganti right in the names of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and the predecessors of defendants Nos. 4 to 7, may be ordered to be expunged. He made other prayers in the plaint to which it is unnecessary to refer.2. The facts of the ease are set forth in the judgment of the Court below and need only be briefly stated. It appears that the Mehal in respect of which the suit is instituted was settled for a term of years with one Prannath Dhar. Prannath had created a ganti interest in favour of some of the defendants or their predecessors. His interest in the Mehal was sold on the 10th January 1906 by reason of his default in payment of Government revenue and was purchased by the plaintiff i...
Abinash Chandra Choudhuri Vs. Osman Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.757
Newbould, J.1. This second appeal is against a decree dismissing a rent suit and the appeal is valued at Rs. 15-1-1 ganda. The learned Pleader for the appellant has been unable to show that any of the questions mentioned in Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy act that would make this decree appealable to this Court has been decided in the lower Courts and I must, therefore, hold that no appeal lies.2. The appellant has also obtained a Rule but there has been no error of jurisdiction to justify me in exercising my revisional powers. Reference has been made to the case of Rajendra Lal Goswami v. Hira Lal Bag 13 C.W.N. 19 (xix) notes. That case is clearly distinguish able, as the Munsif dismissed the case before the date fixed for hearing without taking any evidence. Here the case has been decided after full trial and dismissed on the ground that the holding for which the rent was claimed consisted of two plots but that only one had been described in the plaint. If any error was committed b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »