Kolkata Court July 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.
Asanulla Moll and ors. Vs. Sankar Das Sanyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.548
1. The defendant purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding and the plaintiff as landlord brought the present suit for recovery of khas possession of the land. Defendant's case is that after his purchase he obtained possession, paid rent in the name of the old tenant and obtained Marfatdari receipts for four years and that subsequently the landlord on taking Nazar from him recognized him as tenant and granted a Dakhila in his own name as tenant. The Court of first instance found] in favour of the defendant, but, on appeal, the learned District Judge reversed that finding. The learned District Judge disbelieved the story of recognition on payment of Nazar and the granting of Dakhila in the name of the defendant. So far as that question goes, the finding cannot be interfered with.2. It has been contended before us that the learned District Judge has not considered the effect of the Marfatdari receipts. It one portion of his judgment the learned Judge says: 'Whether the defendant paid...
Abirjan Bibi, Widow of Late Sheikh Basir and anr. Vs. Sheikh Gole Maha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.570
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh, dated the 31st of January 1917, reversing the decision of the Third Munsif at Kishoreganj. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Munsif under the provisions of Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act for the purpose of enforcing a release. The case made by the plaintiffs is this: The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 executed in their favour a certain release. The defendant No. 3 admitted execution, but the other two defendants would not go to the Sub Registrar. Under the provisions of the Registration Act or the practice of the Court that is deemed to be equivalent to refusal to registration and the document can only be registered in proceedings instituted under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. The plaintiffs did institute these proceedings and they terminated in this way. That the application was refused by th...
Hochen Sardar Vs. Poresh Nath Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.647
Ernest Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant No. 1 against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Khulna, dated 3rd January 1917, reversing the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiffs brought the suit for recovery of possession of certain property after establishment of their title. The main point that has been taken in this appeal, is this. The plaintiffs are the sub-lessees of a raiyat and the question that has been urged on behalf of the appellant before us is that the lease is in contravention of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and, therefore, incapable of being given in evidence. The persona through whom the plaintiffs claim, i.e., defendants Nos. 1 and 2, have been found as a fact to be raiyats holding at a fixed rate of rent. In the case of Hari Mohan Lal v. Atul Krishna Boss 23 Ind. Cas. 925 : 19 C.W.N. 1127 it has been established that Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which restricts the powers of raiyats to grant under-l...
BepIn Chandra Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Profulla NaraIn Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.787
1. These six appeals arise out of six suits for joint possession of certain occupancy holding, which were purchased by the defendant who is a co-sharer of the plaintiff in a Zamindari. Plaintiff's case is that these occupancy holdings are non-transferable and that the defendant by purchase thereof at auction sales did not acquire any right to the same and that, therefore, he (the plaintiff) was entitled to get joint possession to the extent of his share in the Zemindari. The Court of first instance found in four of the suits (which gave rise to Second Appeals Nos. 974 and 1183 to 1 85 of 1918) that the decrees in these cases were passed in suits brought by one of the co sharer landlords as plaintiff, but that they were decrees for the entire rent payable to both the co-sharer and that the other co sharer was made a party defendant in the suits. The Court accordingly held that the decrees in execution of which the occupancy holdings ware sold were decrees for rent and that, under these ...
Kartick Mondal Vs. Madhab Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.615
Fletcher, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant No. 1 against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Jessore, dated the 9th January 1917, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Narail. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover rent in arrears, the amount sought to be recovered being Rs, 100. The facts are these: The defendant No. 2 is an occupancy raiyat. He granted a lease to the defendant No. 1, which was in excess of the term as authorized by Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Of course, there is an estoppel between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2. Subsequent to the grant of that lease to the defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 2 purported to create an intermediate tenancy in favour of the plaintiffs. Again that lease was apparently unauthorized by the terms of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs then sued for rent, making the defendant No. 1 principal defendant and the defendant No. 2 the 2nd defendant. The case went to trial and the...
Rebati Raman Basak and ors. Vs. Haris Chandra Basak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.665
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition, and the only question involved in this appeal is, whether the Courts below were right in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to amend the plaint under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiffs alleged that the property in suit was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants; that the plaintiffs were in joint possession with the defendants as co-sharers; that as it became inconvenient to hold possession of the property jointly, they gave notice to the defendants to effect a partition and then brought this suit. The cause of action is said to have arisen in January and May 1916 when the defendants declined to effect the partition.3. The defence (of the defendant No. 1 who alone contested the suit), inter alia, was that the plaintiffs had no title, that the property was not ejmali property, and that the plaintiffs had no possession. He accordingly contended that the suit should not be maintained in the form in which it was in...
Manmatha Nath Bose and ors. Vs. Jagat Ram Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.517
1. The question involved in this appeal is, whether the suit is barred under Order II, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The suit was for recovery of possession of the lands in dispute on the allegation that the plaintiff had been dispossessed by the defendants.3. The plaintiff's case was, that the land originally belonged to one Ganga Das, Roy, that on the death of the latter the property devolved on his cons, on their death again their mother, Mukta Keshi, obtained it by inheritance, and that the plaintiffs, as the nearest agnates of Ganga Das, had succeeded to the property on the death of Mukta Keshi, they being the reversionary heirs. It is alleged that the plaintiffs succeeded to the property on the death of Mukta Keshi in 1913, and were in possession of it until dispossessed by the defendants on the 17th April 1915.4. A previous suit was instituted by the plaintiffs on the 17th May 1915 against the defendants for establishment of their right to some other property which the ...
Kumar Satish Kantha Roy and ors. Vs. Satis Chandra Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.689
1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has culminated in this appeal, is a revenue paying estate bearing Touzi No. 2402 on the revenue-roll of the Collector of the 24-Perganahs. The annual revenue of the estate, which comprises the villages Atpur and Panditnagar, is Rs. 398-9-0. Default was made by one of the joint proprietors in the payment of revenue due on his share for the September instalment of 1914. At that time, a two-thirds share in the proprietary interest was vested in the plaintiffs and the remaining one-third in the father of the 4th defendant who, it is alleged, had granted a mortgage of that share to the plaintiffs. The entire estate was exposed for sale by the Collector for the recovery of the arrears due (Rs. 26-4-8) and was purchased by the 1st defendant on the 8th January 1915 for Rs. 9,200. The father of the 4th defendant, Hemadakantha Ray, in whose share the default had taken place, died a day or two later. The plaintiffs appealed to the Commissioner, but t...
Durga Charan Biswas and ors. Vs. Kailash Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.645
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a title suit. Two points have been urged on behalf of the appellants defendants. The 1st is that the issue of limitation has been wrongly decided and the second that in deciding the question of title the onus of proof has been wrongly thrown on the defendants.2. The plaintiff, it is found, is the purchaser of the property in question at a sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, and any encumbrances that there were to his title have been annulled under Section 67 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The lower Courts have held that limitation runs from the date of the plaintiff's purchase.3. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that if the landlord was out of possession, it must be shown that the defendants came into possession after the creation of the holding, in other words, it is sought to make the principle in the case of Kalikananda Mukherjee v. Bipro Das Pal Chowdhuri 26 Ind. Cas. 436 : 19 C.W.N. 18 : 21 C.L.J. (sic) applicable to t...
Soudamini Ghose Vs. Teniram Mahaldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.755
Newbould, J.1. This Rule arises out of a suit for rent which has been dismissed by both Courts on the ground that the plaintiff as one of two executors who obtained probate can not sue alone No Indian case bearing on this point has been cited by either party. The Court of first instance relief on the decision of the Allahabad Court in Lachman Das v. Chaturbhuj Das 28 A. 252 : 3 A.L.J. 49 : A.W.N. (1906) 16 and the lower Appellate Court relied on the case of Stays Prashad Pal Chowdhry v. Motilal Pal Chowdhry 27 C. 683. But neither of these cases is relevant to the point that arises in this case. Section 82 of the Probate, and Administration act provides: 'After any grant of probate...no other than the person to whom the same shall have been granted shall have power to sue or prosecute any suit or otherwise act as representative of the deceased.' Section 92 of the same act provides: 'When there are several executors...the powers of all may, in the absence of any direction to the contrary...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »