Kolkata Court April 1920 Judgments
Gayanath Ojha Vs. Anukul Chandra Ojha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.835
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Panton in a suit for ejectment.2. The claim was decreed by the Court of first instance That decree was reversed by the Subordinate Judge and his decree for dismissal of the suit has been maintained by the Court.3. It is perfectly plain that the Courts below have got lost in a maze of phraseology which has no application to the admitted facts of this case. The defendant is not a cultivator and the tenancy was not created for agricultural purposes. Consequently, it cannot be maintained for a moment that the defendant is an under raiyat or a raiyat, within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and his liability to ejectment does not depend upon the provisions of that Statute. The defence that the plaintiff had no title has completely failed and it has been found that the land is held by the defendant under the plaintiff. The plaintiff served notice to quit on the defendant on the 24th March, 1321 ...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Charan Kapali and ors. Vs. Abdul Laskar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.928
Greaves, J.1. The present application before as is made at the instance of the first party to these proceeding a and the sole question at issue is, whether they had been served with the notice. Notice, was given to them to appear on the 28th January of this year and they failed to appear on that date, and an order was made adjudging possession to be with the second party. Now, it seems to us unlikely that if, in fact, the first party had been served with notice to appear on the 28th January, they would not have, in fact, appeared on that date. It appears that there is a return made by the peon, who is said to have served the notice on the first party, that, it was in fact duly served upon them; but there is no affidavit proving the service; although I am not prepared to say that in all oases an affidavit is necessary, it seems to me that the real test is whether the Magistrate is satisfied that the service has in fact been effaced or not; and if the Magistrate in this case had, when th...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Nath Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Murari Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.350
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould in a suit for declaration of a right of way over the land described in the plaint.2. The plaintiffs based their claim on user for over one hundred years and also asserted that the way was an easement of necessity. They obtained a partial decree in the Court of first instance. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge gave them a larger measure of relief, on the ground that they had established the right of way claimed on the presumption of a lost grant. Upon second appeal to this Court, Mr. Justice Newbould has, on the facts found by the Subordinate Judge, come to the conclusion that the theory of a lost grant was not applicable, On the present appeal, it has been contended that the case was concluded by the finding of the Subordinate Judge and that it was not competent to Mr. Justice Newbould to reverse that finding on second appeal.3. The Subordinate Judge found that the...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Mukti Prokash Nande and ors. Vs. Srimati Iswari Dei Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.858
Richardson, J.1. The main facts of this case are not in dispute, though the parties are not agreed as to all the inferences to be drawn from them.2. The sister of Lala Bangsha Gopal Nande, a Hindu governed by the Mitakshata Law, became the wife of the then Maharaja of Bardwan. Bangsha Gopal settled in Burdwan and gathered considerable wealth in lands and goods, the whole of which was self acquired. He had three wives and eight sons. The eldest son (the only son by the first wife) was adopted by the Maharaja and ceased to be a son of Bangsha Gopal. The other sons survived him. He died on the 26th December 1892 (Poush 1299) leaving a Will, dated 31st October 1891, by which he distributed his property among his sons. The youngest son, Santi, is not mentioned in the Will but took his share under its terms. The Will provided generally that each son was to live in joint mess with his brothers until be completed the twenty-fifth year of his age when his aliquot share would 'fully belong to hi...
Tag this Judgment!Kamini Kumar Bhoumik Vs. Protap Chandra Bhoumik and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal382,66Ind.Cas.608
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree.2. It appears that certain persons referred to as the 'Banikyas' brought a suit upon a mortgage against the appellants before us and certain other persons. Their suit against the appellants was dismissed with costs, but they obtained a decree upon a mortgage against other persons. The appellants in execution of their decree for costs against the 'Banikyas' attached the mortgage decree they had obtained against the other persons, got themselves substituted as attaching decree-holders and proceeded to execute the decree. The mortgage-decree was for about Rs. 5,000. The appellants, however, executed their decree for realising only the amount of costs due to them viz, Rs. 259, and a share of certain property out of the mortgaged properties was sold and the decree for costs was satisfied with the sale-proceeds.3. The judgment debtors applied to have the sale set aside under Order XXI, Rule 92 and Section 47, Civil Frocedure C...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhamani Das, Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend and Guardian Srima ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal727,66Ind.Cas.628
Richardson, J.1. The learned Vakil for the appellant has given us an interesting address. Bat in my view the case is a very clear one. The question depends on the construction of the Will of Banka Behari Das who died in May 1893. The Will is dated the 30th Baysak 1303 B. S. There is a codicil to the Will which, however, does not affect the point at issue. Banka Behari had a brother named Ganga Charan Das who survived him bat has since died. The plaintiffs in the suit are the widow and the minor son of Ganga Charan Das. By his Will, Banka Behari authorized his widow to adopt five sons in succession and the Will provided that, if a son were adopted, the widow and the son should take the estate in equal moieties. It goes on to say: ' They will be the owners (maliks) in possession with full power of gift and sale to be exercised by each of them.' As I understand that devise, if the widow had adopted a son, she and the son would each have taken a moiety of the estate in absolute right. As a...
Tag this Judgment!Peary Mohun Choudhury Vs. Rasik Chandra Dhubi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.543
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. justice Newbould in a suit for ejectment instituted by a purchaser at a sale held under Act VII of 1868 (B.C.). The Court of first instance refused to decree ejectment, but gave the plaintiff a declaration of his title and of his right to receive rent. On appeal the Subordinate Judge decreed the claim for ejeatment. Mr. justice Newbould has reversed that decision and restored the decree of the Court of first instance. We are of opinion that the decree made by Mr. justice Newbould is correct, though not for the reasons assigned by him.2. The nature of the title of a purchaser of a tenure sold under the provisions of Act VII of 1868 (B.C.) is defined in Section 12 which lays down that such a purchase r becomes entitled to avoid and annul all under-tenures and forthwith to eject all under tenants with certain exceptions. One of these exceptions embodied in Clause (4) is 'tenures of l...
Tag this Judgment!Panchoo Kapali and ors. Vs. Jajneswar Majhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.844
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould, in a suit for recovery of possession of land.2. On the 20th January 1909, the plaintiffs took a lease of 12 cottas of land from the defendants ; they obtained delivery of possession of 7 cottas only, and the defendants, who had their dwelling-huts on the remaining 5 cottas, agreed to vacate that portion after three months. The defendants, however, failed to carry out the terms of the agreement and continued in occupation of the 5 cottas, notwithstanding the lease in favour of the plaintiffs. These facts have been established by the plaintiffs, but their suit has been dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 3 of Schedule III to the Bengal Tenancy Act. That Article provides that a suit to recover possession of land claimed by the plaintiff as a raiyat or an under raiyat must be instituted within two years from the date of dispossession. This plainly implies...
Tag this Judgment!Protap Chandra Pal Vs. Nityananda Nag
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.751
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Shamsnl Huda in a suit for ejectment of an under-raiyat under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.2. It appears that in a previous litigation between the parties with regard to the disputed1 land, the plaintiff sought to eject the defendant as a trespasser In the course of that suit', terms of compromise were arranged between them. These terms in substance were that the defendant should hold as a tenant under the plaintiff on payment of rent at the rate of two annas and that the defendant would not be liable to be ejected from his under-raiyati holding. The plaintiff now argues that he is not bound by this solemn agreement which was incorporated in the decree in the previous suit. His contention is based on the allegation that this was in reality the grant of a perpetual lease and should have been embodied in a registered document. We are of opinion that there i9 no found...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Babu Chandi Charan Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.931
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is a Reference, under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act, by the District Judge of Rungpur, in the matter of Babu Chandi Charan Mitter, a Pleader practising in the Rungpur Courts. Proceedings were taken against the Pleader under Section 13(f) of the Legal Practitioners Act for misconduct set out in three formal charges as follows: 'first, that taking advantage of his position as a Pleader, he, between the dates 17th to 20th September 1919 or there abouts, offered bribes to the record room staff to cause the disappearance of a word which was in all probability either 'Iswarbritti' or 'Iswarkrishna' from a deed, dated the 25th of Aswin 1136 B.S., executed by one Rajaram Nandi in favour of one Santiram Bairagi; secondly, that he attempted to remove the said word from the document between the dates 17th to 20th September or thereabouts; and thirdly, that in all probability he caused the disappearance of the said word from the document between the dates...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »