Kolkata Court April 1920 Judgments
Baikuntha Nath Sorma and anr. Vs. Chaitanya Charan Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.994
Asutosh Mukerjee, 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.2. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession through their tenant, the sixth defendant, who had been wrongfully dispossessed by the other defendants. Upon appeal that decree was set aside by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Mr. Justice Newbould has accepted the view of the lower Appellate Court upon the question of limitation and has affirmed its decree. We are of opinion that this conclusion cannot be maintained.3. The land was first let out to the sixth defendant by the plaintiffs for a term of one year in 1901. On the expiry of the term the defendant continued in occupation upon payment of rent to the landlord, that is he held over, as contemplated by Section 118 ofthe Transfer of Property Act, which reproduces the pre-existing law as enunciated in a...
Tag this Judgment!Sahar Munshi Vs. Jnanada Sundari Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.998
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. These are appeals under Clause 15 of the letters patent, preferred on behalf of the tenants defendants in suits for arrears of rent. They resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the allegation that the rent had been unlawfully enhanced, in contravention of the 'provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It has been established that in 1305 they were found in possession of lands not included in the original tenancy, They thereupon agreed to pay a consolidated rent for the lands of the original holding as also the encroach-ed lands whereof they had taken possession without the consent of the landlord. This plainly constituted a new holding and Section 29 is not applicable in such circumstances, as is clear from the decision in Rat Kumar Sarkar v. Faizuddi Tarafdar 30 Ind. Cas. 283 : 22 C.L.J. 84.. The substance of the matter is that Section 29 is applicable only where the holding remains constant. The view taken by Mr. Justice Cuming is clearly right and...
Tag this Judgment!Sasanka Sekhar Banerjee Vs. Sudhangsu Mohan Ganguli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal91,59Ind.Cas.572
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 5 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Shamsul Huda in a suit for recovery of damages due to an unauthorised distress warrant.2. At the time of the incidents which have culminated in this litigation, the plaintiff-respondent was a resident within the Municipality of Bailey, and the defendant-appellant was its Vice-Chairman. On the 8th October 1914, the Vine-Chairman served the plaintiff with a notice of demand for dues claimed as fees payable for removal of filth from a receptacle in his house. On the 31st October 1914, a bailiff under the orders of the Vice Chairman, entered the house of the plaintiff and attempted to execute a distress warrant, as no payment bad been made in response to the demand. The present suit was instituted on the 2nd February 1915, and the substance of the complaint of the respondent was that the proceedings of the ViceChairman were malicious and the Municipality bad no authority...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Mohon Lahiri and ors. Vs. Abdul Aziz Meah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.595
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. Mr. Justice Shamasul Huda has correctly held that the appeal presented to him was barred under Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that, 'no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed five hundred rupees.' The suit was for recovery of money claimed as grazing fee and the amount in dispute was less than five hundred rupees. Prima facie, then, the suit was of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. But, it has been contended that, the suit was not so cognizable, because the fee was in the nature of rent, and in support of this argument reliance has been placed upon the decision in Bandi Ali Fakir v. Amud Sarkar 26 Ind. Cas. 380 : 19 C.W.N. 415 : 20 C.L.J. 227. That case is manifestly destructive of the contention of the appellant, because it is there pointed out that there can be no claim for rent unl...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Kiran Chandra Rai Bahadur and ors. Vs. Bono Behari Datta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.752
Newbould, J.1. Four suits were instituted and disposed of in one judgment both by the first Court and by the lower Appellate Court. Three were decreed in full and one was decreed in part and the decrees of the first Court were upheld by the lower Appellate Court. In this second appeal the plaintiff is the appellant and his contention is that he should have obtained a decree for the full amount of his claim. In these four suits there are two sets of plaintiffs, one set are the owners of 13 annas, 4 pies interest and the other set of 2 annas, 8 pies interest. The appellants in this appeal are the owners of the 13 annas, 4 pies interest. They claim rent on the basis of an ex parte decree passed in 1606 in a suit brought by the 16 annas co-sharers. Though the lower Court has held that this decree acted as res judicata at a fixed rate of rent, it has given a decree at the lower rate in this case on the finding that, after that decree, the plaintiff accepted rent from the defendants at the l...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shasi Bhusan Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.817
Greaves, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Hooghly, at Howrah, under the provisions of Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an acquittal of the accused Sashi Bhusan Maity by an unaminous verdict of the Jury on a charge under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case for the prosecution is that, as the result of a quarrel between Sashi Bhusan Maity, the accused, and his wife, Jnanoda, Jnanoda left her husband's house to go to her father's house; that the accused overtook Jnanoda on her way there; that high words passed between them, and that the accused seized a half burnt bamboo and with this inflicted severe injuries upon the head of Jnanoda, as the result of which she died immediately. It is suggested on behalf of the accused that Jnanoda met her death not as the result of any blows inflicted by her husband as the prosecution allege, but that she was the victim of a robbery and that, in the course of being robbed, she met with the v...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Nirod Chandra Singh Sarma and ors. Vs. Harihar Chakravarti Chowdh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.867
Asutosh Mookerjee, C. J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Pant on in a proceeding under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for determination of the nature of a tenure.2. The landlords, who are the appellants in this Court, alleged that the rent of the tenure was enhanceable; the tenants contended, on the other hand that the rent had been fixed in perpetuity. The Court of first instance decided in favour of the landlords and that view was accepted by the lower Appellate Court, On second appeal to this Court, Mr. Justice Panton has reversed the concurrent decisions of the Courts below, and has come to the conclusion that the rent of the tenure has been fixed in perpetuity.3. In the interpretation of the contrast of tenancy, which has been placed before us and is dated the 31st August 1828, we must bear in mind the principle enunciated by the Judicial Committee in the case of Bamasoondery Dassyah v. Radhika Chowdhrain 13 M.I.A. ...
Tag this Judgment!Promotha Nath Pal Choudhary Vs. Sourav Dasi Chowdhurani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.327
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in an appeal from an appellate decree, wherein the two Judge of the Division Court have been equally divided in opinion upon an important question of law, namely, who the rule embodied in Section 66 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is applicable to an execution purchaser whose title war perfected when Section 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, was in force.2. The plaintiff instituted this suit for a declaration of his title by purchase at an execution sale held on the 11th August 1903, His case is that he purchased the property in the name of his son, who is the first defendant in this litigation. The sale was confirmed under Sections 314 and 316 of the Code of 1882 on the 30th July 1906. The sale certificate, however, was not taken out till the 24th April 1909 but the title of the purchaser accrued, under Section 316, from the date of the confirmation of the sale that is from the 30th July 1906, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Gopeswar Pyne Vs. Hem Chandra Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.226
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Litters Patent an appeal from original decree, wherein the Judges of the Division Bench ware equally divided in opinion. Mr. Justice Teunon and Mr. Justice Greaves, who heard the appeal, were in agreement to some extent, but as they could not agree upon all the points, the judgment of the Subordinate Judge has been affirmed.2. The suit is for the enforcement of five mortgage-bonds which were executed by the first two defendant?, Moni Mohan Roy and his wife Hari Dasi Debi, on the 12th September 1903. the 25th September 1,03, the 18th November 1903, the 8th December 1903 and the 1st February 1904. The sum advanced on each of the first four bonds is stated to have been Rs. 1,000, while the amount covered by the fifth bond is said to have been Rs. 5,000. The properties covered by the successive mortgages are two, namely, first, a decree for money obtained by Hari Dasi Debi in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hughli on ...
Tag this Judgment!Jotendra Nath Chakrabarti and ors. Vs. Gobinda Chandra Chakrabarti and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.813
1. In this case it appears that the plaintiffs and defendants are cosharer owners of a certain Howla : the original plaintiffs owning 9 annas and the original defendants 7 annas. The defendants Nos.1 to 6, who are the owners of 7 annas share in the Howla, sued for and obtained a decree for their share of the rent of a non-transferable occupancy holding. In execution of that decree they pnrohased the right, title and interest of the tenants. This purchase took place on the 20th July 1897 and upto this time the original tenants have taken no steps to have the sale set aside.2. The plaintiffs in the present suit sued to; obtain khas possession of their share of the holding in question. It has been found by the Courts below that the heirs of the original tenant Hisabdi are now in possession only of the homestead portion of the holding and that all the agricultural lands are in the possession of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 through yearly tenants. It has further been found that though the origina...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »