Kolkata Court February 1920 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.
Jatindra Nath Dutta Vs. Suresh Chandra Ray Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.181
1. This appeal is by the defendant and arises out of a suit for account. The Court below has passed a decree in terms of the prayers in the plaint and the defendant has been called upon to render an account for the period of his service, which means an account from the 12th Bhadra 1313 to the 10th of Jaistha 1320 B.S. He has also been required to submit to the plaintiffs certain papers mentioned in Schedule ka of the plaint. The facts, so far as it is necessary to state them, seem to be these. The defendant was appointed Naib of the plaintiffs' Zemindari at Rangamatia. He executed a kabuliyat and entered into service on the 28th August 1908, or the 12th Bhadra 1313 B.S. He continued in service till his dismissal on the 11th Jaistha 1330, corresponding with 25th May 1913. There is no dispute as regards these fasts, The defence of the defendant was that, as a matter of fast, he had rendered accounts till the year 1317 and that he was preparing his account; for the other years when he was...
Gyanendra Nath Paul and Sambhu Chandra Paul and ors. Vs. the Secretary ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal234,61Ind.Cas.532
1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding taken under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant, Gyansndra Nath Paul, 18 interested as a tenant in the land acquired. It appears that a notice was served noon him under Section 9 of the Act directing him to appear before the collector on the 30th August 1 y 15 at Belur riverside to make a statement as to the nature of his interest in the land and, if he wished to make a claim, to state the amount of his claim and give the particulars thereof, and also to set forth any objections he had to the measurement under Bastion 8, Os the 30th of August the collector went to the spot. The learned District Judge in the Court below has found that the appeal Act filed no written statement of his claim or of coy object he had to make on that day, be, undoubtedly, on the following day, the 3rd August, the appellant filed a petition stating his claim and his objections to the Collector's measurement. In due course, on the 18th of September 1916, an award wa...
Prasanna Dasya Widow of Rami Tanu Das Vs. Amar Chand Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.580
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of 2 1/2 bigha of land. The plaintiff is a superior landlord; under him was a tenant who has been found to have been a raiyat holding at fixed rates. The plaintiff obtained a decree for arrears of rent against his raiyat and in execution of that decree put up the holding to sale and purchased it himself. The defendants in the suit are the successors in interest of a person to whom a permanent lease had been granted by the plaintiff's tenant.2. The Munsif dismissid the suit in so far as it was a suit for ejecting the defendants and granted the plaintiff a decree merely declaring his title.3. On appeal the plaintiff succeeded in getting a decree for recovery of khas possession. 4. The main question that arises in this appeal is whether Section 15 of the Bengal Tenancy Act applies to a lease by a raiyat holding at fixed rates, or in other words, is Section 85 controlled by sections 11 and 18 of the Bengal Tenancy Act? Thi...
Rama Nath Banerjee and anr. Vs. Raja Raj NaraIn Chandra Dharaja
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.722
1. In this case it appears that in a suit for possession and mesne profits on the 4th September 1915, in respect of the period between suit and delivery of possession the Court of the Munsif at Bankura made a degree for a sum of Rs. 3,200.2. This decree was transmitted to the District Judge of Burdwan and was sent by that Court to the Court of the Munsif of Asansol for execution.3. The question in this appeal is whether the Court of the Munsif at Asansol has or had jurisdiction to execute this decree.4. On behalf of the respondent it is contended mainly that inasmuch as the Court of the Munsif at Bankura may execute its own decree, the Court of the Munsif at Asansol, having a like pecuniary jurisdiction, has jurisdiction to execute it.5. On consideration we are of opinion that the equality in pecuniary jurisdiction of the 2nd Courts is not sufficient to override the general rule that Courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction may not entertain execution proceedings in suits in excess of ...
MohsenuddIn Ahammad Vs. KhabiruddIn Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal818,57Ind.Cas.945
Teunon, J,1. This appeal arises out of an application made under Rule 17 of the Second Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure.2. It appears that the descendants of a person of the name of Jhalu Mandal are in dispute as to the extent of their joint properties and as to the manner in which they should be distributed amongst them On the 21st October 1916 these persons entered or purported to enter into an agreement to refer the dispute to the decision of certain arbitrators. The application under Rule 17 was made by or on behalf of five of the persons whose signatures appear on the agreement to refer. It was made on the 4th April 1917. After hearing the parties the Subordinate Judge directed that the agreement should be filed and that the matters in dispute should be referred to the arbitrators named in the deed of agreement. Against this order Mohsinuddin Ahmad, one of the parties to the agreement, has appealed.3. He contends before us that in entering into this agreement he acted under...
Radhika Mohun Roy Vs. Uttam Parbat and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.432
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. The defendant No. 2 was a tenant of a non transferable occupancy holding and sold her interest to defendant No. 1. It is found that the vendor is still in possession and that rants have been accepted from the vendor even after the transfer of which the landlord had notice.2. It appears to me that on these findings the landlord cannot succeed in ejecting defendant No. 2, the vendor. He has obtained a decree in ejectment against the purchaser, defendant No. 1.3. It is contended on the authority of the case of Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Roy 27 Ind. Cas. 61 : 42 C. 172 : 18 C.W.N. 971 : 20 C.L.J. 52 that where the transfer is a Sale of the whole holding, the landlord is entitled to recover khas possession even if there has been no abandonment. It was held in that case that under such circumstances, the landlord is ordinarily entitled to possession of the holding, bat in an ordinary case one would expect a sale of the whole interest of the ra...
Noor Bibi Vs. Ashanulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.435
Newbould, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two connected suits brought by the plaintiff to establish her right of way over two pieces of land. The suits were decreed by the first Court but were dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on appeal.2. It is conceded by the learned Vakil for the appellant that in second appeal, he cannot attack the findings of the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff has failed to establish her right of way based on user from time immemorial.3. It is contended, however, that the plaintiff alto based her claim upon an implied grant and an easement of necessity and that the lower Appellate Court has come to no findings on these aspects of the case, and that the case should be remanded for a fresh decision, The pleadings have not been translated. But from a summary given in the Munsif's judgment and also in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, it would appear that no claim of a right of way was lased either on an implied grant or on an easement of n...
In Re: Shraghrs, Ltd., (In Liquidation).
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1920
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.678
Greaves, J.1. The order will be in the following terns:Upon the application of Edward William Viney of 6, Hastings Street, Calcutta, Chartered Accountant, one of the Official Liquidators of the above-named Company, and upon hearing Counsel for the applicant and upon reading the report of the applicant on the liquidation of the above-named Company and the account annexed thereto and the applicant undertaking to advertise the release hereinafter directed in the Exchange Gazette and to state the amount paid to the Accountant General hereinafter ordered, it is ordered that, the applicant be at liberty, out of the balance of Rs. 960-4-10 standing to the credit of the 0 liquidation in the Bank of Bengal and appearing in the said account, to pay and retain a sum of 5 gold mohurs for his remuneration as one of the official liquidators of the above-named Company and also a sum of in gold mohurs which this Court does asses as the costs of this application and also the sum of Rs. 10 for the costs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›