Kolkata Court July 1920 Judgments
Amar Chand Roy Vs. Prasanna Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal603,61Ind.Cas.529
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. The substantial question in controversy in this appeal is, whether the term transfer in Clause (a) of Section 13 of that Bengal Tenancy Act includes a lease. Mr. Justice Newbould has answered this question in the affirmative on the authority of the decision of this Court in the cases of Hari Mohan Lal v. Atul Krishna Bose 32 Ind. Cas. 503 : 19 C.W.N. 1127 and Ramcharan Bairagi v. Vdai Bairagi 49 Ind. Cas. 515. We have been pressed to hold that those decisions are erroneous, and our attention has been drawn to the judgment in the case of Parushulla Sheikh v. Saikh Chandra Das 28 Ind. Cas. 267 : 19 C.W.N. 1110, where there is a dictum to the effect that the transfers conterppicted in Sections 11 and 18 of the Bengal Tenancy Act are transfers out and out and not partial transfers by way of sub leases. We have arrived at the conclusion that the view taken by Mr. Justice Newbould is correct and that there is really no room for serious argument in this matter...
Tag this Judgment!Budhu Ahir Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal356,62Ind.Cas.179
1. The petitioner in this case was directed under Section 118. Code of Criminal Procedure, to execute a bond for his good behaviour for a sum of Rs. 200 with one surety for a like amount. In compliance with that order, the petitioner tendered as his surety his brother-in-law, Bireswar Ahir, From the report which the Police submitted, it would appear that this brother-in-law is a substantial person. He bad, however, been convicted, how long previously we do not know, of an offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. On the strength of the Police report the learned Magistrate made an order that a better surety was to be found. The petitioner then tendered another surety, who was a Muhammadan; and this surety seems to have been rejected on the ground that he would have no control at all over the petitioner. Now while we recognize that the question whether a surety should be accepted or not is primarily a question for the discretion o...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Sati Prosad Gorga Bahadur and ors. Vs. Sanatan Dhara and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.549
1. This appeal arises out of proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Ant for settlement of rents.2. In the Record of Rights, which was finally published on the 12th March 1917, Raja Sati Prosad Garga and Raja Gopal Prasad were recorded as the landlords. The family is governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The application under Section 105 (Sub-section 1) was made on the 20th April 1917 by Raja Sati Prosad, Raja Gopal Prasad, and an infant son of Raja Sati Prasad, who was born prior to the date of the final publication of the Record of Rights, It appears that on the 15th April 1917 a son was born to Raja Gopal Prasad, and an application was made on the 9th June 1917 for amendment of the original application (presented on the 20th April 1917) by the addition of the infant who may be sailed as the plaintiff No. 4.3. Objections were raised on behalf of the defendants on the ground that the application was time--barred so far as the plaintiff No. 4 was concerned, as an a...
Tag this Judgment!Nibaran Chandra Dutt Vs. MartIn and Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.408
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. (July 23, 1920).--This is an application to review the judgment of this Courtin an appeal from two orders made by Mr. Justice Greaves and Mr. Justice Rankin on the 23rd March and 8th April 1920, respectively. The appeal was dismissed on the 13th July last, on the ground that it was barred by limitation We see no reason to resale from the view we took on that occasion. On the other hand, we are of opinion that the appeal was unquestionably out of time. The petitioner, however, ask us to vacate that order in so far as it dismisses his appeal and to substitute therefor an order under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. For this purpose the petitioner has filed an affidavit by his Attorney, which sets out in detail the various steps taken before the appeal was lodged and the reasons why he acted as he did. On these new materials, the petitioner has urged that if want was undoubtedly the practice of the Court for many years had not been changed, the appe...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Ananda Mohon Roy and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1920
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.145
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Dacca dated the 30th of August 1911 The facts of the case are stated in the report of the Settlement Officer dated the 6th November 1914, in the order of the Director of Land Records on appeal dated the 7th May 1915 and in the judgment appealed from. In the year 1835, the Government purchased at sale for arrears of land revenue an eight-anna share of a Zamindari known as Bardakhat. Within this estate, there were several taluks created by the former proprietors, each comprising a joar or group of villages. The question which arises relates to one of these taluks or joars. A similar question had previously arisen in regard to other joars. The joar with which we are concerned was granted as a miras taluk by the then proprietor to one Shyam Sunder Dutt on the 21st February 1827, the consideration being a lump payment of Rs. 6,600 siccca and an annual rent of Rs. 1,237-80 sicca fixed in perpetuity. Afte...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Krishnasakha Kar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1920
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.7
Asutosh Mookerjee, A.C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of land, and in the alternative for assessment of fair and equitable rent.2. The disputed land was originally chowkidari, chakaran land, which was resumed by the Government on the 27th August 1897 and transferred to the plaintiff and his co-sharers as the Zemindars. Default was thereafter made in the payment of the chowkidari assessment, with the result that the property was sold under the provisions of Act XI of 1859 on the 11th January 1912 when it was purchased by the plaintiff alone. On the 28th January 1915 the plaintiff instituted the present suit.3. The first defendant contended that he was entitled to remain in occupation by virtue of a tenancy which had been treated in favour of his predecessor-in-interest in 1838 when the land was in occupation of the chowkidar. His vase was that as the settlement was made by the Collector, his position as tenant has not been affected in any wa...
Tag this Judgment!Tarak Nath Sarkar and anr. Vs. Srish Chandra Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.412
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Sub-ordinate Judge modifying a decision of the Munsif. The material facts are as follows2. The plaintiffs sued to recover from the defendants rent at the rate of Rs. 146 odd in respect of the defendants holding.3. The defendants holding originally consisted of 68 bighas of land and the rent payable in respect of these 68 bighas was a sum of Rs. 78 odd. Subsequently according to the findings of the lower Appellate Court an area of some 21 bights was added to the defendants original holding and the plaintiffs' case is that a new settlement or arrangement was arrived at between them and the defendants whereby, in consideration of the additional area of 21 bighas being added to the original area of 63 bighas, the rent payable in respect of the whole holding of 90 bighas should be Rs. 146 odd, the amount now claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit.4. The first Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recove...
Tag this Judgment!Akhoy Kumar Gous and ors. Vs. Eradatulla Kazi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.883
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. It appears that originally there was a holding of which the recorded tenant was one Najibulla Kazi and the rental whereof was Rs. 22. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff landlord against the grandsons, great grandsons and other heirs of Najibulla and the rent claimed was in respect of the holding of Najibulla at Rs. 22 per annum. The defence of the defendants was that on the death of Najibulla his holding at a rental of Rs. 22 had ceased to exist and that in lien thereof were created four holdings, each in favour of one of the four sons of Najibulla and each at a rental of Rs. 5-8 in respect of one quarter of the total area, In both the Courts below the case of the defendants was accepted and the substantial question before us is, whether those Courts had before them materials which were sufficient and proper to justify them in coming to the conclusion to which they did come. The materials before the lower Courts were a...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Chand GaIn Vs. Kanaksarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal638,68Ind.Cas.991
Mookkejes, Act. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the tenant defendant in a suit instituted under Section 46 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Sub Section (1) of that Section provides that ' A suit for adjustment on the ground of refusal to agree to an enhancement of rent shall not be instituted against a non-occupancy raiyat unless the landlord has tendered to the raiyat an agreement to pay the enhanced rent, and the raiyat has within three months before the institution of the suit refused to execute the agreement.' Sub-section (2) then provides as follows: ' A landlord desiring to tender an agreement to a raiyat under this section may file it in the office of such Court or Officer as the Local Government appoints in this behalf for Service on the raiyat. The Court or Officer shall forthwith cause it to be served on the raiyat in the prescribed manner, and when it has been so served, it shall for the purposes of this Been on be deemed to have been tendered. '.... Rule 30 of the statutory rules mad...
Tag this Judgment!SulIn Mohon Banerjee and ors. Vs. Raj Krishna Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal582,60Ind.Cas.826
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of possession of land on declaration of title. The land belonged originally to Tilak, the founder of a family of Ghataks, which consisted of three brothers, Khetra, Gopal and Gobinda, as shown in the following genealogical table: TILAK, | ------------------------------------------------ | | | Khetia, Gopal, Gobinda, | | | Muktakeshi, Jogendra, Sarat died 4-8-1909, died 14-10-1908 W. Monmohini. | W. Surasi, | Plaintiff No. 3. ----------------------------------- | | Sulin, Lalit, Plaintifi No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2.2. Khetra left a daughter, Muktakeshi, whose sons are the first two plaintiffs. They claim as reversionary heirs to the estate of their maternal grandfather. Gopal left a sort, Jogendra, who left a widow, Surasi Bala, the third plaintiff in this litigation. Gobinda left a son, Sarat Chandra, who left a widow, Monmohini, the pro forma defendant in this suit. The property was taken by the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »