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.
Ashutosh Mullick and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.302
Newbould, J.1. This Rule must be made absolute. The recent ruling in the case of Sib Kumari Debi v. Secretary of State for India 55 Ind. Cas. 425 : 31 C.L.J. 363 shows that a fine cannot be imposed under Order XVI, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, until after attachment of property under Rule 10 of that Order. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the fine, if paid, will be refunded, I make no order as to costs....
Janada Gobinda Choudhury and ors. Vs. Bonomali Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.989
Newbould, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a single suit for recovery of arrears of rent from six defendants. The suit was decreed by the first Court and against that decree two separate appeals were filed by different defendants, and as these appeals were decreed, two second appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs in this Court. The question to be determined is the amount of rent payable by the defendants for a certain tenure In the Record of Rights the rent was originally recorded at Rs. 21.13. Then in a case under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the Settlement Officer increased the rent to Rs. 39. In the proceedings before the Settlement Officer four of the defendants filed a petition of compromise by which they agreed to pay rent at the higher rate. The order pf the Settlement Officer was in the following terms: 'The claim is decreed on the basis of the solenama against defendants Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 and ex parte against the other defendants. The rent is settled at Rs. 39...
Srimati Sari Alias Saradamayi Debi, Widow of Late NaraIn Chandra Singh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.788
1. The First contention raised in this appeal is that the oral surrender is invalid because the original tenancy was created by a registered lease. But it is found that the tenant gave up his lease-hold right and that it was accepted and acted upon by the landlord. The tenant has raised no objection. In the circumstances, we do not think that the surrender was invalid.2. The next contention is that the tenancy was a yearly tenancy because a yearly rent was paid and that, therefore, the defendant was entitled to six months' notice to quit.3. But the fact of an annual rent being reserved, though it may raise a presumption, is not conclusive to show that it was a yearly tenancy and, secondly, the lease having some into existence after the Transfer of Property Act, there could not be a tenancy reserving a yearly rent having regard to the provisions of Section 107, without a registered instrument. The lease was not for agricultural or manufacturing purposes. It must, therefore, be deemed to...
Srimati Abeda Khatun and ors. Vs. Majubali Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal455,59Ind.Cas.760
Ashutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the tenants defendants in a suit for enhancement of rent of a tenure and for recovery of rent at the enhanced rate.2. The Court of first instance refused the claim for enhancement and made a decree for arrears at the existing rate.3. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge has granted an enhancement and made a decree for arrears at the enhanced rate.4. In support of the present appeal, it has been contended that the claim for enhancement was not maintainable, in view of the provisions of Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In our opinion, this contention is well founded.5. Section 109 provides as follows, 'subject to the provisions of Section 109A. (which relates to appeals from decisions of Revenue Officers), a Civil Court shall not entertain any application or suit concerning any matter which is or has already been the subject of an application made, suit instituted or proceedings taken under Sections 105 to 108 (both inclusive).' I...
Phaindhar Sarma Vs. Jibakrista Sarma and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.260
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. The plaintiff purchased the property from the first defendant, who himself was the recorded purchaser at a sale for arrears of revenue held under Regulation I of 1886 (The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation). The case for the plaintiff is that the property was acquired at the revenue sale by his vendor and that the other defendants, who are members of the same family, had no title thereto. The Subordinate Judge has held that the purchase at the revenue sale was made by the first defendant, not on his own behalf, but for the benefit of all the members of the family including himself. In this view, the Subordinate Judge has awarded the plaintiff a decree for the share which belonged to the first defendant as a member of the joint family.2. On the present appeal, it has been argued that under Section 86 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation it was not...
Ram Sahay Ram and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal181,57Ind.Cas.278
Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.1. This Rule was issued on the application of seven constable who had been convicted of rioting under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment each. The Rule calls upon the District Magistrate of Howrah to show cause why the convictions and sentences should not be set aside. Eleven grounds were set out in the petition; two of these were over ruled by the Bench which granted the Rule; these raised questions of identification and severity of sentence. The other grounds have been summarised in the course of the argument before us under four heads, namely first, that the first Singh, have been tried in contravention of the provisions of Section 403(1), Criminal Procedure Code; secondly, that there is no legal evidence on which any common object could at all be found; thirdly, that the common object found is not supported by the evidence and fourthly, that the common object found is not the common object mentioned in the charg...
Dhar and Co. Vs. Sib Narayan Singh and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.188
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits in one of which, viz., in Second Appeal No. 1466 of 1918, the appellants Dhar and Co. claim Rs. 500, odd, as damages from the defendant on the ground that the latter had not supplied coal in accordance with the agreement entered into between them. In the other suit, Shib Narain Singh claimed Rs. 229, annas 6 from Dhar and Co. being the balance of the price of coal supplied by the former to the latter.2. The Court of first instance decreed both the suits. On appeal, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit of Dhar and Co. and decreed the suit of Shib Narain Singh.3. Dhar and Co. have appealed to this Court in both the cases.4. In the first case, the learned Additional District Judge has held that as there was no direct evidence as to the signature of Shib Narain on the letter (Exhibit 1), the suit must fail.5. No doubt, where an executant denies that he wrote a document, the ordinary mode of proving the execution is by calling some one wh...
Dinabandhu Maiti Vs. Bishnu Bewa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.715
1. The question involved in this case is, whether the suit upon the mortgage-bond out; of which this appeal arises, is a suit for enforcement of money charged upon mortgaged property within the meaning of Article 182 of the Limitation Act.2. The mortgagor took a loan of a certain quantity of paddy and agreed to re pay it together with interest thereon at so many kathas per Kuri per year and fan her agreed that, on default of payment within the time stipulated, the mortgage would be entitled to realise the money-the subject matter of the claim together with costs by gale of the property which was mortgaged to secure the loan, and that if that was insufficient to satisfy the debt, by attachment and sale of other properties of the mortgagor.,3. The suit was brought more than six years after, and within twelve years of the due date of payment.4. The Court below, relying on the decision in the case of Rash Bihari Das v. khunj bihiri patra 37 Ind. Cas. 805 : 24 C.L.J. 348 held that the suit ...
Lambonath Das Barua Vs. Sarunath Dutta Barua and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.775
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land on establishment of title. The question in controversy it, whether there has been a proper trial of the suit.2. The examination of the parties and their witnesses in the Court of first instance commenced on the 17th September 1915. By the 29th September, the plaintiff and all his witnesses were examined, and the first defendant and some of his witnesses were also examined. With the consent of beth the parties, the 8th October 1915, which was a Civil Court holiday, (the first day of the annual vacation) was fixed for the examination of the remaining witnesses to be produced by the defendants. On that date, the plaintiff could not bring any Pleader to cross-examine the witnesses. The Court thereupon adjourned the suit till the next day. The plaintiff, however, could not bring any Pleader on the 9th October and two witnesses were examined on that day but were not cros...
Bharat Chandra Deb and ors. Vs. Ram Sundar Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.860
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by three of the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession of land on establishment of title.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit as barred by limitation under Article 47 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act.3. Upon appeal the Subordinate Judge has held that the case is governed, not by Article 47 but by Article 142, and has made a decree in favour of the plaintiff with regard to five of the plots in suit.4. On the present appeal, the decision of the Subordinate Judge has been challenged on the ground that Article 47 should have been held applicable. In our opinion, this contention is not well-founded.5. Article 47 provides that a suit 'by any person bound by an order respecting the possession of immoveable property made under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1893...or by any one claiming under such person, to recover the property comprised in such order' must be instituted within three years from the date of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »