Kolkata Court August 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.
Manindra Nath Mittra Vs. Hari Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.626
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit to set aside a decree on the ground of fraud. The plaintiff alleged that he held the land in dispute as an occupancy raiyat under the defendant for a long time, but that the latter by inducement, threat and misrepresentation obtained two kabuliyats for a term of 3 years from the plaintiff in the year 1911, and then brought a suit in the year 1914 for ejectment of the plaintiff on the ground that the term of the kabuliyat had expired; that the plaintiff filed his written statement in the said suit, but on the adjourned date of hearing could not appear owing to his illness, and the defendant obtained a decree for ejectment by fraud, in execution of which he dispossessed the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon brought the present suit on the 3rd December 1915 for setting aside the decree and for possession.2. The Courts below found that the plaintiff was an occupancy raiyat and that the kabuliyats were obtained from him by the defendant to defeat his rig...
Nadiram Alias Nabadwip Chandra Sil Vs. Srinath Chakrabarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.906
1. The plaintiff sued for khas possession of the land in suit upon declaration of his ryoti interest therein. He claims to have purchased the land from one Ram Kumar Chakravarty, who had an occupancy right in it. The principal defendants contend that Ram Kumar had a mokarari mourashi kayami right and that he settled the land with their predecessor Bangsi Sil by a lease, dated the 28th Kartick 1302 (Exhibit G) under which they Claim an occupancy right. The case, therefore, depends on the question as to what right Ram Kumar had and what right was acquired by Bangsi Sil under Exhibit C. The trial Court was of opinion that Ram Kumar was an occupancy ryot, that his right was heritable but not transferable, that the plaintiff after his purchase had not been recognized by the two-annas co-sharer superior landlord, hence his title to the ryoti was only to the extent of 14 annas share. He also held that Bangsi's ryoti under Ram Kumar was not heritable and, therefore, it did not pass to his heir...
Noor Mahomed Dawood Vs. Belasiram Thakursidas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.458
Rankin, J.1. This is an application by Hariram Sitaram as assignee of a firm sailed Noor Mahomed Dawood which, on the 21th January 1919, obtained an award against Bilasiram Thaknrsidas, the execution debtors. I will refer to the assignee as the present execution-creditor. The award was for Rs. 3,229 with certain interest and it became enforceable as if it were a decree on the 10th February 1919, having been filed in Court on that date. The execution-creditor's assignment is dated 25th February 1919. In the previous year the execution-debtors had had two other awards made against them in favour of Ram Chandra Chowthmull and Gopiram. Bhutica respectively. These awards had been filed in Court and applications for execution had been made to the Court thereunder in July and August 1918. Both of these applications were for attachment of the moveable property of the execution-debtors. It does not appear that under either of these applications attachment was in fact made but in any case no att...
Monmotha Nath Mitter and ors. Vs. Anath Bundhu Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1919
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.469
1. These cases were remanded to the Court below for distinct finding upon the following points with respect to the lands of Schedules ka and kharist, 'whether any of the namas in Mouzah Baliari mentioned in the chalan of 1275 (Exhibit P 26) OR any of the jamas in Mouzah Bankipore mentioned in the chalan of 1276 (Exhibit P 27) can be identified with the jamas mentioned in the khatian or other papers prior to the Permanent Settlement. Whether the land of such jama can be traced and identified, Second, whether the rent or rate of rent of any such jama has remained unchanged from the time of the Permanent Settlement. Third, whether, upon the facts proved and the circumstances of the case, any presumtion arises with respect to any such jama that the rent or rate of rent has remained unchanged from the Permanent Settlement, and, if so, whether such presumption has been rebutted.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has carefully considered the jamas mentioned in the chalans, Exhibits P--26 and P-...
Debendra Narayan Singh Vs. Narendra Narayan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.636
1. The litigation which has culminated in this appeal was commenced by the plaintiff respondent for adjustment of accounts, Tarini Charan Singh, the father of the plaintiff, died on the 5th November 1899. On the 4th March 1881 he had made a testamentary disposition of his properties and had nominated his wife, Rangini Dasi, the sixth defendant in this suit, as executrix to his Will. On the 27th April 1901 the widow obtained probate and took possession of the estate as executrix. Differences arose, however, amongst the members of the family, which consisted of the three sons of the testator (the plaintiff, Narendra Narayan, the first defendant, Debendra Narayan, and Surendra Narayan, the father of defendants Nos. 2-5) and a daughter, Basanta Kumari. The result was that in 1903, the present defendant, Debendra Narayan, instituted a suit for construction of the Will and for administration of the estate. The suit was decreed in the Court of first instance on the 28th July 1905. On appeal b...
Raj Mohon Dhupi and anr. Vs. Harendra Chandra Mukhopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.816
1. Two questions are raised in this appeal. The first is whether the plaintiffs have made out any title and the second is whether assuming that title had been so made out, the defendants are entitled to remain on the land and are protected from ejectment by reason of the fact that they are, as they allege, raiyats with rights of occupancy. Upon the question of title the judgment of this Court is impugned on the ground that the learned Judge, whilst holding that certain documents were inadmissible, has yet thought that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court might be affirmed on the ground that besides such documents there was sufficient evidence on the record to justify the conclusions at which the lower Appellate Court had arrived.2. As regards this Mr. Justice Greaves has assumed for the purposes of his judgment that Exhibit H was inadmissible. It does not appear, therefore, whether he was of opinion that the document was admissible or inadmissible. But he has assumed that it was i...
Chaudhuri Meah and ors. Vs. Abdul Rahaman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.349
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule granted to show cause why an order sanctioning the prosecution of the seven petitioners by Mr. Ghatak, the learned Judge, should not be get aside.2. The matter cornea before us under Section 195(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that 'Any sanction given or refused under this section may be revoked or granted by any authority to which the authority giving or refusing it is subordinate,' and, this Court has to decide whether the sanction given by the learned Sessions Judge should be revoked in the case of all the petitioners or in the case of any of them. The conclusion of the learned Judge's judgment was in these terms: 'I accordingly sanction prosecution of the opposite parties or such of them as are guilty of the offences mentioned or any of such offences.' It was argued by the learned Vakil who appeared on behalf of the petitioners that this order was irregular and could not stand and that the learned Judge ought to have de...
Mahananda Pal and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.631
1. We think that this matter ought not to have been decided in the way in which it has been done by the learned District Judge.2. We are not inclined to attach much weight to the case of Land Acquisition Act, In the matter of 30 B. 275 : 7 Bom. L.R. 697 with reference to this question. It has always to be remembered that in cases of this kind petitions are put in by persona without any legal aid. Id is evident from the petition before the Court that the claimants were complaining that the award was extremely inadequate and that they were claiming Rs. 5,000 per bigha. There is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act which requires a claimant to state the grounds in detail upon which he claims a larger sum. Unfortunately the claimant has mixed up another matter with this claim, namely, about some land which he wanted to be acquired. This cannot clearly be a matter of reference. It also refers to another plot of land, and that matter was not asked to be referred to the Court but was for deter...
Kishori Mohan Bagchi and anr. Vs. Hari Das Bysack
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.999
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Messrs. Kishori Mohan Bagchi and Amar Krishna Bagchi; and in the application the applicant ask for an order that a certain search warrant and an order directing the applicant to execute bond for Rs. 15,000 should be set side2. It was directed by this Court that this application should be heard at the same time as the Criminal Appeal No. 354 of 1919, and in the ordinary course the procedure would have been to have issued a Rule upon the learned Magistrate to show cause why this order should not be made; but inasmuch as the direction was that the application should be heard along with the appeal, and inasmuch as Mr. Orr appearing in the appeal was already instructed on behalf of the Crown and Mr. Mukerjee appeared on behalf of the complainant, it was agreed by all the parties that this matter, in order to save time, should be fully argued to day, and it has been argued by the learned ge...
Rashik Chandra Dhupi and ors. Vs. Peary Mohan Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1919
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.287
Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree in ejectment. The plaintiff was a purchaser at a sale of a Noabad Talaq under the provisions of Act; VII of 1868. The defendants are the tenants of a holding which was let out to them as a tank. The question is whether the defendants are protested by any of the clauses of Section 12 or by Section 11 of Act VII of 1868. The first Court held that the defendants were ryots with rights of occupancy and were, therefore, protested under Section 14 and also protected under Clause (4) of Section 12, as they had a house and a garden on the banks of the tank. The lower Appellate Court has reversed this decision and has given the plaintiff a decree for khas possession.2. The first point urged was that as admittedly a tank was made on the land, the fourth Clause of Section 12 must be applicable. My attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court in the case of Ajgur Ali v. Asmut Ali 8 C. 110 : 10 C.L.R. 87 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 70 and it is c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »