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.
Kali Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Bejoy Gobinda Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.937
Greaves, J.1. This Rule was granted at the instance of the second party calling upon the opposite party to show cause why certain proceedings purporting to be framed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be quashed on the third and fifth grounds stated in the petition or why, in the alternative, the case should not be transferred for hearing to the District of Faridpore.2. The facts are shortly as follows:The first party, Bejoy Govinda Mitra and others are the Naib and tenants of the Zemindar Surendra Krishna Dutt. So far as the second patty are concerned. Kali Kumar Das is the Naib of the Zemindar Narendra Narayan Singh and the other persons Nos. 2 to 9 are fishermen claiming rights of fishery granted to them by Narendra Narain Singh and also certain rights appertaining thereto. On the 24th February this year, the first party reported to the Police that a breach of the peace was imminent and accordingly a Sub. Inspector was deputed to report. On the 23rd February...
Modhu Sudan Das Mohant Goswami Vs. Srimati Iswari Deyi Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal152(1),61Ind.Cas.25
Richardson, J.1. This is an appeal arising suit of a suit brought by the two sons and the wife of Lala Jyoti Prokash Nandi against Madhusudan Das Mohunt, a creditor of the Lala, and the Lala himself, who is impleaded as the defendant No, 2. We have already had occasion to deal with a similar suit brought by the same plaintiff against the Lala's younger brothers from whom he had also borrowed money (See R. Appeal No. 229 of 1918 decided on the 30th April 1920). Mukti Prokash Nanda v Iswari Debi 57 Ind. Cas. 858 : 24 C.W.N. 938, The present appeal covers much the same ground and I need not repeat what I said in my previous judgment with regard to the family to which Jyoti Prokash belongs the mode in which he took his share in his father's estate and the vicious and extravagant course of conduct which he pursued. It is stated in the present case that be incurred debts to various creditors to the total amount of three case of rupees. We are now concerned with a gum of Rs. 5,030 lent to him...
Dekari Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. the Assam Bengal Railway Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.919
Rankin, J.1. In this case, I mush regret that I cannot see my way to give effect to this motion. The circumstances arise in my opinion entirely from the conduct of the defendants in the suit, who appear to reconcile their conduct with the ordinary principles of fair dealing somewhat more readily than I am able to do myself.2. The matter stands thus:These defendants were sued before me for damages for loss of a certain quantity of tea carried by them. The question of the amount of damages was postponed until questions of liability, which were somewhat complicated, should have been determined. On my giving judgment against these defendants on the question of liability, I was informed that the amount of damages was likely to be either agreed or referred. The next step, after I had given some time to the parties, was that they tame to an agreement that Mr. Lloyd should arbitrate, and it was intended that a reference under Rule 1 of the Second Schedule should be made to him. That matter fel...
Kshetra Mohan Paddar and ors. Vs. Azizullah Mea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.902
Newbould, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge has, I think, erred on both the grounds on which be rejected the application for substitution. The concluding portion of the ruling to which he refers--Mahomed Yusuf v. Abdur Rahim 26 C. 839 : 4 C.W.N. 558 : 13 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1138--shows that it is rot necessary to take out a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act when the decree-holder has died during the pendency of the execution proceedings. As regards the second point, it is only necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Jagat Tarini Dasi v. Rakhal Chandra Tewary 3 Ind. Cas. 324 : 14 C.W.N. 752 at p. 753 : 10 C.L.J. 396 and more particularly to the remark at page 753 Page of 14 C.W.N.--Ed. in the paragraph commencing with 'On behalf of the respondent a preliminary objection has been taken.'2. The Rule is made absolute and the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated the 2nd December 1919, refusing substitution is get aside. Substitution will be made as pray...
Basanta Kumari Chaudhubani and anr. Executrices of the Wlll of Late Sa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.312
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs sue as patnidars of a debutter mahal dedicated to a deity spoken of as Kali Doyamoyi. It appears that the predecessors of the plaintiffs obtained this patni from one Manik, the shebait of the idol, sometime in the year 1885. In 1889 the patni was sold for arrears and bought in by Manik, who next transferred it in the year 1890 to one Panchuram whose son Soshi Bhusan sold to the plaintiff.2. In this suit we are concerned with four holdings bearing, annual rentals of Rs. 6, Rs. 12, Rs. 4 and Rs. 19.9.101/2. respectively.3. In a suit brought in 1902 in respect of these same holdings Soshi Bhusan obtained a decree against the predecessor of the present defendant but a second suit brought in 1904 was dismissed on the ground that the patni had merged in the superior interest on the purchase by Manik in 1889 and that the conveyance of the patns to Panahuram conferred no title upon him. The plaintiffs had the defeat in the...
Purna Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Ali Muhammad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1920
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.999
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in action in ejectment. The case for the plaintiffs is that they are raiyats that the defendants are the representatives-in- interest of an under-raiyat and that they have unlawfully continued in occupation of the land notwithstanding the service of notice to quit in accordance with Clause (b) of Section 49, Bengal Tenancy Act. They accordingly instituted this suit on the 7th January 1918 to eject the defendant. The Court of first instance decreed the suit upon appeal that decision has been reversed by the Subordinate Judge. On the present appeal three questions have been raised, viz., first, what was the status of the plaintiffs? Were they raiyats as alleged by them or tenure-holders as alleged by the defendants? Secondly, if the defendants were under-raiyats under the plaintiffs, has their tenancy terminated by a notice to quit and, thirdly, have the plaintiffs by acceptance of rent from the defendants subsequent to the service of notice to quit...
Amulya Charan Sarkar and ors. Vs. Amrita Lal Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.336
Walmsley, J.1. So far as I can understand the fasts of this case, it appears to me that, probably, the provisions of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, offered the Magistrate the best means of settling the dispute between the two parties. But in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Emperor v. Abbas 12 Ind. Cas. 833 : 39 C. 160 : 14 C.L.J. 429 : 16 C.W.N. 83 : 12 Cr.L.J. 569, I do not think it is open to this Court to say that the Magistrate must proceed under Section 145 and not under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. As the Magistrate has exercised his discretion I think we are not entitled to interfere. I, therefore, discharge this Rule.Greaves, J.2. I agree....
Ram Sundar Das and on His Death His Heir and Legal Representative Rake ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.460
1. This appeal is concluded by the findings of fast arrived at by the lower Appellate Court, It has been urged that the first Court had passed a decree against all the three defendants, and the appeal having been filed only by one of them, namely, defendant No. 3, the decree could not have been reversed as regards the defendants who did not appeal, and that, so far as those defendants were concerned, the decree should have been allowed to stand. We do not think that this contention is well-founded. The language of Order XLI, Rule 4 is sufficiently wide to give jurisdiction to the Appellate Court to vary the decree in favour of all the defendants, the decree against them proceeding on a common ground.2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs....
Gopal Mollah and ors. Vs. Mafidannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.200
1. The appellants, who are the principal defendants in the suit, derive their title under a lease from one Kefatulla's daughter, the defendant No. 5. Kefatulla was himself an under-rate under Jasimuddin. The plaintiff represents Jasimuddin as the raiyat in respect of the land in suit, The defendant No. 5 does not resist the plaintiff's claim to eject her from the land in suit, and, therefore, it seems to us unnecessary to consider whether the surrender by defendant No. 5 was or was not a valid surrender. The question is, whether the defendants have any right to remain in the land. It has been held that the rights of an under raiyat are not transferable, and there is nothing in the Bengal Tenancy Act which gives any right to an under raiyat to create a tub lease, this was laid down in the case of Aminunnisa v. Jinnat Ali 27 Ind. Cas. 271 : 20 C.L.J. 548 : 42 C. 751 : 19 W.N. 43 We hold, on the authority of that decision, that the sub lease granted by Kefatulla's daughter to the principa...
Brojo Gopal GossaIn Having Died in His Place His Wife and Heiress Monh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.473
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment which was decreed by the Munsif of Manikgunj and dismissed on appeal by the Additional District Judge of Dacca. It is found by both the Courts below that the defendant is a purchaser of an occupancy holding which is non-transferable by custom and that his transfer has not been in fact recognised by the landlord. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a temporarily settled estate. She has been holding this estate since 1871 with renewals of agreement at different periods. The second term of her settlement expired in 1915; but on the 12th June 1913 the plaintiff executed a kabuliyut for a term of 15 years from 1915. In that Kabuliyat there was a clause in the following terms: 'I agree to recognise recorded rights of tenants, Sub-tenants, Mandals and others within the mahal' In the Rent Roll the holding that forms the subject of this dispute was recorded in the following entry: 'Jote Genda Dewan and others; possessor Rajani Kant Gho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »