Kolkata Court May 1920 Judgments
Sm. Bhushanmani Dasi Vs. Prafulla Krista Deb Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.801
1. This Rule is d treated against an order by which the District Judge of the 24 Pargannas affirms the, order made by the Munsif, First Court, at Diamond Harbour By the said order the Munsif rejected an application for setting aside a gala made on the ground of fraudulent suppression of process, certain irregularities, and insufficiency of price. Both courts have held that the application was barred by limitation, and in coming to this conclusion they have proceeded merely on the deposition of the applicant who was examined on commission. In the course of this deposition she stated that she had hearsay knowledge of this sale come two to three months before the application wag preferred. From the date of this hearsay knowledge of the fact of sale the Courts below are of opinion that limitation should run. We are unable to think that they are right in go holding. The applicant must have knowledge not merely of the factor of the sale, but a clear and definite knowledge of the facts which ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Birendra Chandra Singh and Manmatha Nath Mullik Vs. Mahammad Sol ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal449,68Ind.Cas.491
Richardson, J.1. The plaintiff in the two suits cut of which these appeals arise purchased holding of 2O-A in Mahal Panchannogram in the 24-Parganahs at a sale for arrears of revenue or rent held under Act VII of ) 868, which incorporates the provisions of the Bengal Revenue Sales Act (XI of 1859). The holding is a tenure within Act VII of 1868 and the defendant in each suit is an under-tenure-holder in occupation of lands comprised in the holding. Appeal No. 135 relates to Suit No.20 of the Court below and Appeal No, 137 to Suit No. 19.2. The bolding was sold on the 17th May 1915 for an arrear of Rs, 6105 and the page paid by the plaintiff was Rs. 8,900.3. The suit were brought to vacate the under-tenures of the defendants under Section 12 of the Act of 1838 as incubuses imposed upon the tenure after its creation or after the time of Settlement. The defendants contend in the first place that the sale was invalid ina(sic)somh boH as the Collect or had no authority under the law to sell...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Nath Sarkar Vs. Innatennessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.763
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal from a derision of the 5th Subordinate Judge of Dacca, dated the 17th December 1917, reversing a decision of the 3rd Munsif of Dacca, dated the 23rd August 1913.2. The suit was one for specific performance of a certain contract and for possession of properties. The Munsif decided that the suit could not succeed inasmuch as there was doubt as to the identity of the properties in respect of which a decree for specific performance was sought. The Munsif states that the bainapatra sought to be specifically enforced is not in itself very specific and clear with respect to the properties claimed.3. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that this question does not really arise having regard to certain facts, which he states have appeared in the pleadings, and it is against this decision that this appeal has been preferred.4. It is said that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in not applying his mind to the question of identity upon which ground the Munsif had dis...
Tag this Judgment!Balai Chand Pal Vs. Panchu Gopal Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.319
Newbould, J.1. This appeal is- against a decree declaring the plaintiff's right of way over certain land and also granting him a mandatory injunction against defendant No. 1 for the demolition of a wall. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant.2. The facts which are now undisputed are as follows: There was formerly a bari belonging to one Shyam Chand Mullick, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants Nos. 2 to 8. The west portion of this bari was sold to the predecessor of the plaintiff. At that time, a passage for mehters was reserved between the land sold to the plaintiff's predecessor and the land reserved by Shyam Chand Mullick. Subsequently, the land to the east of the passage was sold to the defendant No. 1. The question in dispute is the width of the northern portion of this admitted passage.3. The finding of the lower Appellate Court is that at the time of the sale to the plaintiff's predecessor, Shyam Chand accommodated him by allowing him the use of the entire land including plots A...
Tag this Judgment!RabiuddIn Vs. Ram Kanai Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.186
1. The question involved in this appeal is, whether the application for execution of the decree was barred by limitation.2. The preliminary decree was dated the 23th June 1912 and the final decree was dated the 6th February 1915. The application for execution was made on the 25th March 1918, that is more than three years after the date of the final decree.3. It appears that subsequent to the 25th March 1918 an application for amendment of the decree was made on behalf of the decree-holder. That application was allowed without any notice to the judgment-debtors. After the amendment was made the judgment-debtors were served with notice and then they appeared and raised objection to the execution on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The Courts below have overruled this plea and the judgment-debtor-defendant No. 3, has appealed to this Court.4. As stated above, the decree was barred on the day the application for execution was made which was more than three years after the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Manujendra Dutt Choudhury Vs. Beswanath Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.277
Walmsley, J.1. Since the order of remand passed by this Court on the 12th March (sic), and since the order passed by the learned District Judge on the 6th October 1917, there have been published decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Aziz Khan v. Duni Chand 48 Ind. Cas. 983 : 23 C.W.N. 130 : 101 P.R. 1918) 166 P.W.R. 1918 (P.C.) and in the case of Balla Mal v. Ahad Shah 48 Ind. Cas. 1 : 23 C.W.N. 233 : 35 M.L.J. 614 : 16 A.L.J. 906 : 124 P.E. 1918 : 25 M.L.T. 55 : 180 P.W.R. 1918 : 29 C.L.J. 165 : 1 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 25 : 21 Bom. L.E. 558 (P.C.). In view of these rulings I think the question raised in this appeal must be taken as settled. The Courts below held that the defendants have been unable to prove fraud or undue influence, and, in my judgment, it follows that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at the rates stipulated in the lease; that is, at the rate of Rs. 25 per cent. per mensem, Interest will be calculated at that rate up to the date of th...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Kumar Majumdar and Vs. Dinabandhu Nandi and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.748
1. This case and Appeal No. 93 were remanded for findings on certain points. They relate to the nature of the landlord's interest at the time of the lease to Kali Charan Dey.2. It has been found in the other case (Second Appeal No. 2575 of 1917) that the landlord had the right of a permanent tenure holder in one-third of the property, and subsequently acquired a permanent right to two-thirds share. In the present case (Second Appeal No. 1616 of 1917) the landlord had only the interest of a ryot. A sub-lease was granted by the landlord and as he had only a ryot's interest, the interest created in favour of the lessee was that of an under ryot. The lease purported to grant a permanent transferable interest. A sub lease granted by a ryot after the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act for a term exceeding nine years and registered in contravention of the terms of Section 85, Clause (2) is inadmissible in evidence to prove the tenancy of an under-ryot Jarip Khan v. Durfa Bewa 15 Ind. Cas. 476 ...
Tag this Judgment!Hridyanath Roy and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Barua Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.806
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. The suit which has culminated in this reference wag instituted by the appellants for recovery of possession of land upon declaration of title. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiffs upon the questions, of title and possession and decree d the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court as to title and possession, but dismissed the suit on the ground that a previous suit, instituted in respect of the same subject matter, had been improperly withdrawn under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2). In support of this view, the Subordinate Judge relied upon the decision in Kali Prasanna Sil v. Panchanan Nandi Chowdhury 33 Ind. Cas. 670 : 23 C.L.J. 489 : 20 C.W.N. 1000 : 44 C. 367 which is an authority for the proposition that where the Appellate Court allows a plaintiff to withdraw from a suit on the ground that he had not been able to adduce all the evidence which should have been adduced, the order is without jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Kumar Nag and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.940
1. I think this Rule must be made absolute to this extent that the judgment of the Appellate Court, dated the 8th March 1920, so far as it affirms the order passed against the two petitioners Jogendra Kumar Nag and Gopi Krishna Baksi, must be set aside and the case be remitted to that Court for the appeal to be re-heard.2. The objections taken to the judgment of the Appellate Court are two fold, first, in regard to its finding on the matter of association, and secondly, in regard to the evidence which has been admitted into consideration. There were four persons placed on their trial and the matter of association was dealt with very summarily by both the Courts. The first Court remarks: 'The association of these accused in order to commit thefts and burglaries has been proved to my satisfaction.'3. The Appellate Court says that 'their association for the commission of crime has been established. They are close neighbours and they are found to be implicated in a good many cases together...
Tag this Judgment!Bhut Nath Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Mathura Mohan Naskar and on His Deat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal199,57Ind.Cas.1004
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The holding in Question, it appears, was created by a kabuliyat executed on the 10th January 1879 in favour of one Bindubashini, who was then the holder of the superior interest, that interest being that of a tenure-holder. The holding created by the kabuliyat of 10th January 1879 is, it appears, that of a raiyat at fixed rates. The kabuliyat provides inter alia that rent shall be payable in monthly instalments and that on arrears in accordance with such instalments--interest shall be payable at the rate of one anna per rupee per month, that is at the rate of 75 per cent. In the Court of first instance the plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining a decree for arrears with interest at the rate stated and in accordance with the terms of the kabuliyat. On appeal to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Alipur, they were allowed interest only at the usual rate of 12 1/2 per cent. on arrears in accordance with the usual four equal kists.2. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »