Kolkata Court May 1920 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
inu Manual and ors. Vs. Kumar Bimalendu Boy Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.337
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The plaintiff failed in the first Court but was successful in the lower Appellate Court, and the defendant now appeals. The plaintiff, who was a co-sharer landlord purchased a raiyati holding in execution of a mortgage, decree in 1904. In 1905 he granted the defendant an under raiyati lease for nine years. He brought this suit to eject the defendant on the expiry of the term. The contention of the defendant which was upheld by the first Court was, that the plaintiff's status could not be that of a raiyat and that consequently he, the defendant, was not an under-raiyat but a raiyat. The only question argued before us has been as to the status of the plaintiff. The case has been argued on the assumption that Section 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as it stood before the amending Act I (E.B. and A.) of 1908, applies to this case. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the effect of the amendment was not to alter the law ...
Khetra Nath Mondal, and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Representativ ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.442
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of an occupancy holding. The holding belonged to one Budha Buna who executed a usufruotuary mortgage of five out of eight plots on the 24th August 1896, in favour of the superior landlord, the present defendant-appellant. The usufruotuary mortgage was to terminate on the 13th April 1911. The landlord went into possession as usufruotnary mortgagee of the five plots years later, the occupancy raiyat left the village, with the result that the landlord seized the opportunity to take possession of the remaining plots included in the holding. The occupancy raiyat is now dead. Upon the expiry of the usnfructuary mortgage, the landlord has not vacated possession, and on the 8th March 1915, the representatives of the occupancy raiyat instituted the present suit for recovery of possession. The claim has been decreed in respect of the five plots included in the (sic) mortgage, but has been dis...
Kamini Keshore Sen Choudhuri Vs. Sri Parbartya Tipperah Raj (Moharaja ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.434
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title.2. The case for the plaintiff is that, the disputed land appertains to Taluk Ratana ballav, the case for the defendants is that it is included in Taluk Golam Ali. The Court of first instance appointed a Commissioner to identify the lands with reference to the thak map, The contesting defendant did not appear before the Commissioner, with the result that his proceedings were held ex parts. The report he submitted supported the claim of the plaintiff. There can be no doubt the Commissioner adopted the only course which was open to his, namely, to proceed ex parte in the absense of the defendants. In such circumstances, the defendants would not ordinarily be entitled to take objection to the report of the Commissioner, as was pointed out by Sir Barnes Peacock, C.J., in the case of Eshan Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Soorjo Loll Gosain Marsh. 139 : 1 Ind. Jur. ...
Kalibrohma Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Moulvi Sayidar Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.986
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The land in question was formerly the non-transferable occupancy holding of one Poran Chandra Dey. After Poran's death his heirs sold their interest to Haridas, defendant No. 4, by two deeds of sale--one in 1308 and the other in 1309. Haridas took possession of the land but his transfer was not registered in the landlord's therista but rent was accepted from him and receipts given to him as marfatdar. Haridas continued paying rent up to 1315. He then sold his interest to defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in 1316. After Haridas had left the land, plaintiffs brought a rent suit for the years 1316 to 1319 and obtained a rent decree; and in that suit the plaintiffs made the heirs of Poran defendants. In execution of that rent decree the plaintiffs purchased the holding, but they do not now base their claim to possession of the land on that purchase. After their purchase, from Haridas defendants Nos. 1 to 3 took possession of the land; and ...
Abhoya Chandra Ghosh and ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.504
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Shamaal Huda in a suit for declaration of a right or way and for a perpetual injunction to restrain interference therewith. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, and that decision has been successively confirmed by the Subordinate Judge and by Mr. Justice Shamsul Huda. We are of opinion that the view which has commended itself to all the Judges concerned is correct and must be upheld.2. The plaintiffs based their title on a putni lease granted to them by the defendants on the 24th October 1882. The question has been discussed in the Courts below as to whether the plaintiffs as tenants can acquire a prescriptive right of way as against the landlords-defendants. In our opinion, that question does not really arise on the facts of this case. The title of the plaintiffs is based upon the grant of 1882. Under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, the effect...
Dinesh Chandra Shaha Minor Heir of Late Debnath Shaha by His Adoptive ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.693
Newbould J.1. In this case the same point arises as arose in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 2281 of 1918, which we have just decided. This is a suit on a mortgage-bond in which the plaintiffs have been granted a decree at a rate of interest less than the contractual rate because the Courts have held that rate to be excessive. In support of the decision of the lower Courts the learned Pleader for the respondents relied on the decision of a Bench of this Court in Krishna charan Barman v. Sawi Kumar Das 34 Ind. Cs. 609 : 44 C. 162 : 25 C.L.J. 24 : 21 C.W.N. 740. But since that decision there have been two decision of the Privy Council in the cases of Aziz Khan v. Duni chand 48 Ind. Cas. 933 : 23 C.W.N. 130 : 165 P.W.R. 1918 : 101 P.R. 1918 (P.C.) and Balla Mal v. Ahad Shah 48 Ind. Cas. 1 : 23 C.W.N. 233 : 35 M.L.J. 614 : 16 A.L.J. 905 : 124 P.R. 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.R. 558 (P.C.) and there has also been a decision of th...
Haran Chandra Barai and ors. Vs. Hari Charan Barai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.899
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1 This is an appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, from the judgment of Mr. Justine Newbould in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title.2. The plaintiffs claimed to recover possession of the disputed land, on the allegation that they were in possession as occupancy raiyats and wrongfully dispossessed by the defendants. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and alleged that the land was in the occupation of the landlord, who settled it with them. They also pleaded that the suit was barred under Article 3 of the Third Schedule to the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.3. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the alleged title of the plaintiffs had been established and that the special rule of limitation was not applicable, inasmuch as the dispossession was not by the landlord. On second appeal to this Court, Mr. Justice Newbould has reversed that deci...
Srimati Bhagabati Debya Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Babu Nilkantha Chatte ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.191
1. This is a Rule to show cause why certain orders of the District Judge of Rangpur passed in connection with an application for restoration of the estate to the co-owners should not be set aside.2. It has been contended before us that the common manager, having been appointed by the District Judge oil the ground that there was a dispute between the co-owners, and the owners having now joined in making a petition for the restoration of the estate, the Court has no power to inquire into the question whether the restoration can be made without inconvenience to the public or injury to private rights.3. We are unable to go into these questions at the present stage, as the learned District Judge has not passed any final orders in the matter.4. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the common manager has practically been made a party to the proceedings because he has been allowed to engage a Pleader and is going to adduce evidence against the petitioners.5. All that we ne...
Mathura Debya, Widow of RamdIn Hazari and ors. Vs. Bejoy Singh Hazari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.627
1. We have already dealt with Appeal No. 151 of 1917 and the facts are stated in our judgment in that appeal. It was at the request of the parties that we postponed the hearing of the present appeal, in which the appellants are the defendant No. 1 in the suit, Mathuriya Debi, the widow of Ramdin Hazari, and her nephew, the minor defendant No 6, whom she has adopted as a son to Ramdin and who is represented by her. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit, Bejoy Singh Hazari, the son of Sheodayal. The appeal is from that part of the decree of the Court below which declares that the adoption of the defendant No. 6 by the defendant No. 1 is invalid.2. After this appeal was heard, a Rule was issued at the instance of the appellants calling upon Sheodayal to show cause why he should not be made a party respondent. Having heard the Rule, we are of opinion that it ought to be discharged as Sheodayal was not a plaintiff in the Court below but a defendant.3. The Case stands thus. The plainti...
Golak Bihari Bhowmik, minor by his Father and Next friend Benode Behar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.86
1. These cases were remanded to the lower Appellate Court and that Court was directed to decide the question whether the stipulation in the kabuliyat to pay the full rent after the expiry of the lease was intended to be acted upon, or whether there was a waiver of the stipulation after the expiry of the lease.2. That question has been gone into by the lower Appellate Court and it has some to the finding that it was intended to be asked upon.3. It is contended before us on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the learned District Judge in arriving at that finding has pro-seeded upon the view that the realisation of rents at the reduced rate for a long period of time cannont by itself show that the landlord at the time be accepted the kabuliyats never intended to enforce his right to receive rent at the full rate after the expiration of the term of the lease. This, the learned Pleader for the appellant say?, indicates that, in the opinion of the learned Judge, it was not independent ev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »