Kolkata Court April 1920 Judgments
KasimuddIn Nasya and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.934
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In this case three of the convicted men are represented by the learned Vakil. Those three are Ladu Pramanik alias Nader, Kanchu alias Bajiruddin Shekh and Osimuddin Molla alias Kana. There is an appeal by Kasimuddin Nasya who is not represented by any learned Vakil.2. The first point taken by the learned Vakil is that the learned Sessions Judge did not give sufficient direction to the Jury on the Question of law. The record of his charge is as follows: 'Upon the above facts the accused have been charged with having committed the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence is here explained to the Jury with reference to Sections 395, 391, 390, 383 and 378 as also Sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Penal Code.' 'They have now been told what constitutes the offence of dacoity. The first thing they have to decide is whether there was a dacoity committed in the house of the complainant Rahis in the night of the 4th July last. In the second place,...
Tag this Judgment!Norendra Nath Koer Vs. Bhusan Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.375
1. We are of opinion that this reference was not necessary. There are two sets of decisions in the reports: In one set it is laid down that a person, who unlawfully interferes with the exercise of the property rights of another, commits an act in the nature of trespass to property, and is liable for damages in an action for trespass. In the other series of cases it is laid down that no suit lies for damages against a defendant for maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause instituting a civil action. As an illustration of the former class, reference may be made to the case of Bhut Nath Pal Mistry v. Chandra Benode Pal Chowdhury 16 Ind. Cas. 443 : 16 C.L.J. 34. As an illustration of the latter class, reference may be made to the cases of 'Bishun Singh v. A.W.N. Wyatt 11 Ind. Cas 729 : 14 C.L.J. 515 : 16 C.W.N. 540. and Mohini Mohan Misser v. Surendra Narain Singh 26 Ind. Cas 296 :42 C. 550 :1 C.L.J. 68 : 18 C.W.N. 1189. There is no conflict in principle between the two classe...
Tag this Judgment!PulIn Behary De Vs. Satya Charan De and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.301
1. This appeal and the connected Rule are directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Alipore in the course of a partition suit. The suit in question was brought by one Satya Charan Dey, the younger son of one Rakhal Chandra Day, against his elder brother of the half blood, Pulin Bahary Dey, for the partition of the family immoved able and moveable properties. The immoveable properties included the family residential house, being premises No. 30, Beniapukur Road.2. On the 16th December 1918 a Receiver to the estate under partition was appointed and thereafter, on the 18th March 1919, the plaintiff Satya Charan Day represented to the Court that owing to the conduct of his elder brother the defendant No. 1, be had been compelled to leave the residential house of which, therefore, the plaintiff remained in sole occupation. He, therefore, applied that the defendant No. 1 should be required to pay, in respect of his occupation of this house, a fair rent, which he put at the s...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Das Chakrabarty Vs. Sheikh Nasarat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.413
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justine Shamsul Huda in a suit for ejectment.2. The plaintiff claims to be a raiyat, and alleges that the defendant was an under-raiyat for five years, whose term had expired and who had notwithstanding stayed on the land.3. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that as the plaintiff is a raiyat holding at a fixed rate of rest, the defendant who holds under him mast be a raiyat with a right of occupancy. This view is opposed to the clear provisions of Section 4 of the Bangal Tenancy Act. That section defines the various classes of tenants as (a) tenure holders, including under-tenure holders, (b) raiyats, and (c) under raiyats, i.e., to say, tenants holding, whether immediately or mediately, under raiyats. Raiyats are next classified as raiyats holding at fixed rates, occupancy raiyats and non occupancy raiyats. It is perfectly plain that a tenant who holds under a raiyat is an under raiyat, whether...
Tag this Judgment!Kamini Sundari Dasi and ors. Vs. Prasunna Kumar Sil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.662
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. justice Shamsul Huda, in a suit for ejectment.2. The plaintiffs appellants claim a raiyati interest in the disputed land and seek to recover possession on the allegation that the defendant was an under raiyat whose tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit. The defendant contends that he himself has a right of occupancy and cannot consequently be evicted.3. It has been found that the original raiyat in occupation of the land, was one Monsa. His interest in the land was acquired by one Ful Chand. But Ful Chand did not turn out his vendor from the land who continued to cultivate the same. The real point in controversy in this case is, what was the result of this transaction. It has been contended on behalf of the defendant that, not with standing the transfer by Monsa to Ful Chand, Monsa continued to be a raiyat in respect of the land and acquired the status of an occupancy raiyat. This position is ...
Tag this Judgment!MohiruddIn Sarkar Vs. the Secretary, Hadal Gramya Rindan Samiti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.977
1. This appeal is against an order of the Court below dismissing an application for being declared an insolvent.2. The application was dismissed on the ground that the grant of the petition would encourage fraud.3. The learned Judge refers to an agreement (Exhibit 1) executed by the petitioner, which mentioned certain properties as belonging to him (the petitioner).4. There is a letter on the record written by the petitioner, in which he stated that he executed the agreement under coercion after having been subjected to insults by some persons on behalf of the village Co operative Bank.5. The opposite party urged that the petitioner defrauded the Secretary of the Bank and that his present petition was made with the object of defrauding all his creditors by concealment of property.6. The learned Judge was of opinion, as stated before, that the grant of this petition would be to encourage fraud,7. But, in the first place, there has been no enquiry into the matters stated in the letter of...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. Upendra Chandra Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.959
1. Tnis appeal, which arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, illustrates the shortcomings and difficulties of the enactment. The plaintiff is the appellant. The lands in suit belong to his Mehal Beldanga. In the time of his predecessor interest there were disputes between her and the tenants as to the rent and area of the holdings. The Magistrate of the district then intervened and the disputes were settled, the principal tenants executing niriknamahs at certain rates. Among them the defendant executed furdit in respect of 68 bights, 17 kattas and odd in his possession, agreeing to pay rent at Rs. 63 6 9 on the basis of the niiiknamah. He also exeauted a kabuliyut in favour of Meharani Swarnamoyi, the predecessor, on the basis of which he paid rent up to 1308. On default made, the plaintiff instituted rent-suits on the strength of the kabuiiyat, which was held invalid by this Hon'ble Court as being in contraventio...
Tag this Judgment!Khatizan Vs. Sonairam Daulatram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.963
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by Mr. Justice Greaves, under Clause 18 of the Matters Patent, for the transfer of a claim, suit from the Calcutta Small Cause Court to this Court.2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal is incompetent, in as much as the order is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. There can be no question, in our opinion, that the proceeding whish has been transferred is a suit within the meaning of Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. It was pointed out by Mr. Justice Wilson in the case of Ismail Solomon Bhamji v. Mahomod Khan 18 C. 296 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 197, that, under the Rules of Small Cause Court, claims are not tried summarily; they are dealt with just as suits are and we find that the proceeding is described and is numbered as a suit lending in the Calcutta Court of Small Causes. The only question consequently is, whether the order of transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmamoyee Barmani Vs. Sheikh Munsur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.859
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land.2. The case for the plaintiff is that the land was made over to the defendant for a period of eleven months on condition, first, that the defendant would bring the land under cultivation, would make over half the produce to the plaintiff and take the other half as his remuneration, and, secondly, that at the end of the eleven months, the defend ant would quit the land without notice. The defendant entered into possession but at the end of the prescribed period did not vacate the land. The result was the institution of this suit.3. The defendant pleaded, contrary to the terms of the document executed by him in favour of the plaintiff, that he was an occupancy raiyat and was, not liable to be ejected. He alleged that he was at the date of the execution of the document, a settled raiyat of the village holding other lands, and that as he became a tenant of the disputed land the moment ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Biswas Vs. Jogendra Nath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.854
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit instituted by the respondent for a mandatory injunction to pull down a cornice and string-course put no by him go as to overhang the plaintiff's land, upon declaration that he had no right to make such preventions.2. The Courts below have found that the defendant had a hut on the disputed land in respect of which he had an easement. The only question in controversy is, whether the right of easement exists in respect of the two-storied building by which the hat has been recently replaced.3. Now, it is well settled that no man can impose a new or increased restriction or burden on his neighbour by his own Act, and for this reason an owner of an easement cannot, by altering his dominant tenement, increase his right. This principle is well illustrated by the decision in Harvey v. Walters (1873) 8 C.P. 162 : 42 L.J.C.P. 105 : 28 L.T.343. In that case, the house in respect of which an easement was enjoyed was pulled down and was replaced by a n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »