Kolkata Court June 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.
Molla Ataul Huq Vs. the Chairman of the Manicktola Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal85,57Ind.Cas.960
Teunon, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, is a resident within the Municipality of Manicktolla.2. A general election of the Commissioners of the Manicktolla Municipality was held on the 27th March 1920, and of this date due intimation had been given by a notification published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 3rd September 1919. Thereafter in accordance with the Rules framed by Government under the provisions of Section 15 of the Bengal Municipal Act, III of 1884, the register of persons qualified to vote was revised under the provisions of Rule 4 of the said rules and on the 23rd January 1920 was duly published under Rule 5.3. It is not disputed that the plaintiff possesses the qualifications required of voters by the proviso to Section 15 of the Act, and that his name appears on the assessment or rating lists. It follows that his name should have appeared in the revised and published register of qualified voters and the omission of his name can be attribu...
Bidhumukhi Dasi and ors. Vs. Bhaba Sundari Dasi and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.868
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by an auction-purchaser of a holding, at a sale for arrears of rent to recover possession of the lands comprised in the holding, from the defendant who had subsequently purchased the same at a sale in execution of a decree upon a mortgage executed by the tenant.2. It appears that the tenant had mortgaged the holding to the defendant, Bidhumukhi, in 1901. A suit was brought upon the mortgage in 1911 and was decreed by the Court of first instance on the 6th February 1912, and Bidhumukhi purchased the holding in execution of her mortgage-decree on the 19th November 1913.3. In the meantime, the landlord obtained a decree for arrears of rent against the tenant, and in execution of that decree the holding was purchased by the decree-holder (the plaintiff) on 19th March 1912. He obtained formal delivery of possession on the 17th June 1912, and on the 31st August 1912, served notices under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act upon the defendants (other than...
Rash Behari Chowdhury Vs. Upendra Nath Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.711
1. It is obvious that the suit has been rightly dismissed. The claim is founded on the assumption that the tenancy was forfeited by transfer on the 15th April 1906, inasmuch as it was a non transferable holding. It transpires that subsequent to that date the plaintiff repeatedly sued the original tenant for rent, for periods subsequent to the transfer. That was a waiver of the forfeiture: and, if the forfeiture of the 15th April 1906 is not operative now, the original tenancy is still in subsistence and no decree for ejectment can be made in favour of the plaintiff.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs. ...
Reaj-ud-dIn Dalal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.759
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for declaration that a sale held under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, on the 12th September, 1913 was a nullity. The Courts below have decreed the suit.2. On the present appeal it has been contended that the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 37 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. In our opinion, this contention cannot possibly be sustained, as, in the events which have happened, the sale cannot be regarded as a sale under the Statute.3.It appears that a date had been fixed for the sale of the property, but no sale took place on that date. Thereupon, on the 5th September 1913, the Certificate Officer pasted the following order: 'Put up for sale, but no bid in Court, Nazir or Naib-Nazir to sell locally within 12th September.' At the sale which actually took place on the 12th September, there were no bidder?, and the property in suit was sold along with five other properties for an aggregate...
Bhairab Chandra Koley and anr. Vs. Kali Charan Dhara and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.106
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs, and it arises out of a suit which they brought for declaration of their title to four plots of land, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. There were three principal defendants and they filed a joint written statement in which they stated that defendant No. 1 had taken settlement of plots Nos. 1 and 2, and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 of plots Nos. 3 and 4. The first Court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and gave them a decree. The three defendants preferred an appeal; but before the appeal was heard defendant No 1 died and no steps were taken to bring his legal representative on the record. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, although he noticed this fact, decreed the appeal in full and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiffs now urge that, so far as plots Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, that is the plots of which, according to the written statement, defendant No. 1 took settlement, the learned Judge ...
Sabjan Manual Vs. Haripado Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal599,66Ind.Cas.103
1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this case, purchased a holding in execution of a decree for arrears of rent on the 18th September 1913 and obtained formal possession on the 5th February 1914. He was, however, resisted by the defendant who had purchased the interest of one of the tenants in execution of a mortgage-decree on the 18th May 1912. The rent suit appears to have been instituted on the 15th April 1912, and the sale in execution of the rent-decree took place, as stated above, on the 18th September 1993. The defendant's purchase at the sale in execution of the mortgage decree, therefore, took place after the institution of the rent suit, but before the sale in execution of the rent decree.2. The plaintiff brought the present suit for recovery of possession on the basis of his right by purchase at the rent sale. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. On appeal the decree was reverted on the ground that the plaintiff had not annulled the encumbrance of the defendan...
Chandra Mohan Ghorai and ors. Vs. Prosunna Kumar Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.259
Buckland, J.1. The application in which the order appealed against was made was one for review of a consent decree on (he ground that it had been induced by fraud. The learned Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that in such circumstances the application was not maintainable and that the proper remedy was to proceed by way of suit. On this point I do not agree with him and 1 think he has failed to appreciate the effects of the judgment in the case of Golab Koer v. Badshah Bahadur 2 Ind. Cas. 129 : 13 C.W.N. 1197 : 10 C.L.J. 420 at p. 440. In that case after consideration of the facts it was held, for reasons with which I entirely agree, that in the majority of cases it would be more convenient if relief was sought by way of suit. The learned Judges do not hold that an application cannot be made under Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code. In the case of Rasik Chandra v. Rajani Ranjan 10 C.W.N. 286. it was distinctly held that the ground of fraud, when practised upon ...
Hem Chandra Chowdhury Vs. Chandra Mohan Namodas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.204
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree for rent.2. It appears that the plaintiff decree holder claimed rent (in the awl) at the rate of Rs. 22 while the tenant pleaded that the rent of the holding was Rs. 13. The parties then settled the case; the defendants-took some additional lands, and for the entire land (the original area and the additional land) the rent was fixed at Rs. 22 per year. A decree was phased upon the compromise, but the Court did not comply with the provisions of Section 147-A of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Tenancy Act.3. The decree-holder having applied for, the execution of the decree, the judgment debtor raised objection to the execution on the ground that the provisions of Section 147-A not having been complied with, the decree was incapable of execution. The decree-holder has appealed to this Court.4. The Court below relied upon the case of Sarjug Saran Lal v. Dukhit Mahto 18 Ind. Cas. 809 : 17 C.W.N. 496, in support of the view taken...
In Re: Nafar Chandra Dome (Mondal)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.321
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, on the ground that the order was made in contravention of its provisions. That section is in these terms: (1) Every High Court Judge, District Judge, Sessions Judge, District Magistrate and Presidency Magistrate, every Revenue Officer, not being below the rank of a Collector of a District, and the Chief Judge of every Presidency Small Cause Court (each as regards their or his own Court and the Courts, if any, subordinate thereto) may frame and publish lists of persons proved to their or his satisfaction, by evidence of general repute or otherwise, habitually to act as touts, and may, from time to time, alter and amend snob, lists....' This provision has been interpreted to mean that the evidence must be taken by the officer concerned. This was first laid down in the case Prasanna Kumar Das, In the matter of 12 C.W.N. 843 note and th...
Khaja SamshudIn Alias Khaja Suekroo Vs. Pyari Lal Das, Chairman, Dacca ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal161,60Ind.Cas.498
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the fifth defendant in a suit instituted by the Chairman of the Commissioners of the Dacca Municipality for recovery of arrears of Municipal rates in respect of a holding within the jurisdiction of the Municipality. There is no dispute that all the five defendants are owners of the holding. The fifth defendant, however, pleaded that he was not an occupier of the holding, which was really occupied by his co-sharer, the first four defendants. The claim is for a sum of Rupees 740-4 annas made up as follows: Rs. A.P.House-rate... ... 420 0 0Water rate... ... 210 0 0Latrine-fee... ...110 4 02. It is clear from Section 103 of the Bengal Municipal Act, read with Section 85(b), that the house rate is leviable from all the owners. Section 279(3), read with Section 83(d), makes the water-rate payable by the occupiers while Section 322(1), read with Section 86(f), makes the latrine-fee payable by the occupiers. The Courts below have overruled ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »