Kolkata Court May 1920 Judgments
Kedar Nath Chowdhury Vs. Dwijendra NaraIn Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.756
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge, in a gait for rent. The amount claimed in the suit was Rs. 21.12.3 and did not consequently exceed Rs. 100.2. On behalf of the respondent a preliminary objection has been taken that the appeal is incompetent under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The appeal is prima facie incompetent unless the appellant is able to satisfy us that the decree appealed against has decided a question relating to title to land or any of the other special questions mentioned in Section 153. The decree under appeal has not decided any question on the merits at all, because the District Judge rightly or wrongly held that the appeal preferred to him was incompetent under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Consequently, the second appeal is incompetent, and is dismissed with costs.Fletcher, J.3. I agree....
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Kumar Biswas Vs. Hemlata Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1920
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.362
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Fletcher in a suit by a husband under Section 18, read with Section 19, of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to declare his marriage with the defendant null and void on two grounds, namely, first, that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of the institution of the suit, and secondly, that his consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud, The parties are Indian Christians in an humble state of life and were married on the 15th February 1918 at the Baptist Church at Entally in the subarbs of this City. The petitioner alleged that the parents of the respondents as also the respondent herself, were, at the time of the marriage, suffering from a highly infectious and insurable form of syphilis; that this fast was wilfully concealed from him; that his consent to the marriage was thus brought about by fraud, and that he discovered the condition of his wife only On the second day a...
Tag this Judgment!Killing Valley Tea Company Limited Vs. Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal40,61Ind.Cas.107
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 51 of the Indian income Tax Act, 1918, which is in these terms:(1) If in the course of any assessment under this Act, or any proceeding in connection therewith, other than a proceeding under Chapter VII, a question has arisen with reference to the interpretation of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule there under, the Chief Revenue Authority may, either on its own motion or on reference from any Revenue Officer subordinate to it, draw up a statement of the case and, refer it, with its own opinion thereon, to the High Court, and shall so refer any such question on the application of the assesses unless it is satisfied that the application is frivolous or that a reference is unnecessary.(2) If the High Court is not satisfied that the statements contained in the case are sufficient to enable it to determine the questions raised thereby, the Court may refer the case back to the Revenue Authority by which it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Ohad and anr. Vs. Amdali Gazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal248,57Ind.Cas.969
1. In this case it appears that the plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of possession on establishment of title. The principal defendants were five persons, the heirs of one Uzirulla. Of these the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were of (sic) being the elder sons of (sic) The defendant No. 3 was his (sic)of full age, and defendants Nos. 4 (sic) were minors. The suit was contested (sic) two elder sons of Uzirulla and was decided on contest against them and ex parte against defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The (sic) endants Nos. 4 and 5 being minors were represented in the suit by their mother defendant No. 3, and on an issue raised in both the Courts below it has been held that they were properly represented by the defendant No. 3. Against the decision of the Court of first instance an appeal was preferred by the defendant No. 1. To that appeal he made neither the mother nor the minor defendants parties respondents. His appeal failed, and now the two minor sons of Uzirulla came forward and applie...
Tag this Judgment!JainaddIn and ors. Vs. SalimaddIn Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.965
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' title to and for confirmation of their possession in four parcels of land.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the four parcels of land in suit appertain to a jote belonging to one Mainuddi and they date their cause of action from the final publication of the Record of Rights, in which the principal defendants are recorded as owners of the said lands, and plaintiff No. 2 is recorded as a bargait or produce rent paying tenant under defendant No. 1. The defendants' contention on the other hand was that from the original owners of the jote, the aforesaid Mainuddi and his brother, the four parcels of land had been purchased by Shomsheruddin, the husband of defendant No. 1 Nasi Bibi. They further alleged that Shomsheruddin had been placed in possession in pursuance of that conveyance which bears date some time in 1304, and that he and after him his representative in-interest had continued in possession first through ba...
Tag this Judgment!The Midnapore Zemindary Company Limited Vs. Enatulla Sarkar, and on Hi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.60
Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for at rears of rent. The tenancy is said to have been created by a kabuliyat, dated the 28th July 1900. The plaintiffs contend that the rent is payable at the annual rate of Rs. 95-8. The defendant is not the original tenant, but a purchaser of the tenure at a sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, held at the instance of the landlord. His contention is that in the sale proclamation it was stated that the rent was payable in respect of the tenancy at the rate of Rs. 71-10 and that whatever the terms of the kabuliyat might have been, he is not bound to pay rent at a higher rate. The District Judge has accepted this contention and has made a decree accordingly.2. On the present appeal it has been contended that there is no legal evidence to show that it was stated in the sale proclamation that the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 71-10. The District Judge has, on this point, accepted secondary evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Aminulla Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Mahabat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal519,60Ind.Cas.457
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for ejectment. The subject-matter of the litigation is an under raiyati holding created on the 11th January 1899. In contravention of the term of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the raiyat granted a permanent lease to the under-raiyat. The under raiyat continued in occupation for many years on payment of the rent fixed in the lease, Default was thereafter made and in 1911 the raiyat sued the under-raiyat for recovery of arrears of rent. Various defences were taken to the claim. On the 9th August 1911 the parties came to a settlement. One of the terms of the agreement was that the under-raiyat should abandon all opposition to the suit; another term was that on payment of Rs. 25 as premium to the raiyat, the latter should agree to treat the holding as heritable. A decree was drawn up in the rent-suit on the basis of this settlement: and, although the terms of the compromise are not set out in the decree, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Chandra Kar and anr. Vs. Syam Sunder Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.798
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession and declaration of title to the disputed land, which is admittedly not an agricultural holding and is, therefore, governed by the Transfer of Property Act. Defendants Nos. 2 and 5 contested the suit, the former alleging that he was the plaintiff's tenant and the latter that he was a tenant under defendants Nos. 1 and 3, who according to the plaintiff were tenants at-will. The Munsif dismissed the suit, holding the claim barred by limitation and also that notice had not been validly served. He, however, held the question of title in plaintiff's favour. There was a previous suit No. 310 of 1910 in which defendants Nos. 1, 2 and the father of defendant No. 3 were party defendants, which was decreed on a Solenama against the present defendant No. 3, who was defendant No. 13 in that suit, and ex parte against the other defendants. The plaintiff's title was declared in that suit, but khas possession was not given and the present defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Kala Chand Mukhapadhya and ors. Vs. Jotindra Nath Chakerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.852
Teunon, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by two sets of plaintiffs for a declaration of a right of way.2. The path in question runs east to west, running from the culturable lands of the village on the west to the ghat on a certain khal on the east: connecting the path again with the house of one set of plaintiffs, spoken of as the Chakerbuttis, to the north is another path over what is spoken as the Chattan. The path is also in dispute.3. The Chakerbuttis have a homestead in the estate or mahal known as No. 201 granted rent free to their predecessors in-title by the then owners of estate No. 201. The 2nd set of plaintiffs, the Dasses, are residents in estate No. 183, and were raiyats thereon up to 1316, and are now part owners of that estate.4. The path or paths in question run partly over the lands of 201 and partly over the lands of 183.5. The findings of fact arrived at by the Subordinate Judge in the Court of first appeal are as follows: The existence of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Hemendra Mohan Khashnabis Vs. Noresh Chandra Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.418
Asutosh Mookerjee, Actg., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order in a mortgage suit. The District Judge has dismissed, as barred by limitation,an application mads by the plaintiff under sub Rule 2 of Rule 5 of Order XXXIV of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff was the third mortgagee, and on the 31st January 1911 obtained a preliminary decree under Rule 4. That decree fixed the 31st July 1911 as the last date for payment of the judgment debt by the mortgagor. The payment was not made. The present application was thereafter made on the 2nd October 1915. the respondent, who is the second mortgagee, objected to the application on the ground of limitation. The Court of first instance overruled this contention. Upon appeal, the District Judge has come to a different conclusion.2. We shall assume for our present purpose that Article (181) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act applies to this case, and that consequently the application should have been made within three y...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »