Kolkata Court July 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.
Brindabun Behari Roy Vs. Bhupali Bhusan Adhikari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.743
Walmsley, J.1. The object of this suit was to sat aside an order passed under Section 174(2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act annulling a sale which had been held in execution of a rent-decree. The plaintiff is the auction-purchaser. Defendant No. 3, the present appellant, and his brother were the judgment-debtors. After the sale was held, a deposit was made under Section 174 and the plaintiff withdrew the money which he had paid at the sale. A year later he brought the present suit to have the order cancelling the sale set aside. The question whether such a suit is maintainable was considered by a Bench of this Court in the case of Kabilaso Kore v. Raghu Nath Saran Singh 18 C. 481 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 321. The learned Subordi-Judge says that that ruling is no longer good law because of the modification of Section 170 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. I am quite unable to see what bearing the change in Section 170 introduced by the Act of 1907 has on the judgment in the case I have mentioned; and th...
Rajendra Mohun Moulik and ors. Vs. Upendra Nath Guha Thakurta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.518
Teunon, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover arrears of an annuity on the basis of a certain 'briti danpatra,' i.e., a gift or grant of an allowance for maintenance.2. Plaintiff was the husband of one Sarat Sundari, the granddaughter by a deceased son of one Gopi Mohun Moulik. Sarat Sundari died in 1316 (1909) leaving an infant son who died in the same year, Gopi Mohun died in Sraban 1323 (July 1916) and the present suit was instituted on the 9th November of that year.3. The material portions of the danpatra or grant are in these terms: 'You are the daughter of my eldest son. I have married you to a Kulin. Hence it is essentially necessary that I should make provision for the support and maintenance of yourself and of the children born of your womb (gorbhajat santan digen). According to my Will you are entitled to Rs. 300 a year from my estate if you live with your husband in my house, but the Will does not make provision in case you live in your hu...
Uday Mandal and ors. Vs. Ram Durlabh Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.707
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by defendants. In the suit from which it arises the plaintiff sought to recover possession on a declaration of his title to five bighas of land. He said he had a share in the Mouzah Diktosh and that the land in suit is part of that village, On the other hand the defendants said that the land belonged to Shyampore. They also pleaded that they had been in possession for more than twelve years and the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. Several other points were raised in the case but I do not propose to enter into them.2. The first Court found that the defendants had proved their possession for long over 12 years and also that the land did not lie in the village Diktosh and that the plaintiff bad never had possession.3. The plaintiff then preferred an appeal, and the learned Judge on appeal held that a portion of the land did lie within the village Diktosh. He then proceeded to deal with the point of limitation, and he found that he was in ag...
Jaladhar Bhowmik and ors. Vs. Birendra Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal761(1),60Ind.Cas.389
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs are. putnidars and allege that they hold an 8-annaa odd share in the putni. On this basis they claim from the defendants Rs. 22-10-5 gandas as rent annually payable for the holding in their possession. The defendants contend that the share of the plaintiffs in the putni is not 8-annas odd, as alleged by them, but only 7. annas odd and that the rent payable by them to the plaintiffs in respect of this 7. annas odd share is Rs. 13-2-6 gandas. Two questions are thus in controversy between the parties, namely, first the extent of the share in the superior interest held by the plaintiffs, and, secondly, the amount of rent annually payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The Courts below have held that these questions are rei judicata by reason of the decision in a previous litigation between the parties.2. It appears that in the previous suit for rent these very questions ...
Nayanjan Bibi Vs. Durgadas Bandapadhaya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal327,60Ind.Cas.449
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiffs in the suit are the owners of an osat taluq. For a certain period their property was let out in ijara. During the term of the ijara the tenant of a certain holding, one Salim, fell into arrears. A suit was brought against him and in execution of a decree obtained, the holding was purchased by the ijaradar. Having thus purchased the holding he next proceeded to sub-let the same to the old tenant, Salim. Thereafter, Salim died and on the death of Salim the ijaradar or purchaser of the holding next inducted upon it his heirs the present defendants. On the expiry of the ijara lease the landlord seeks to eject the heirs of Salim as trespassers. The first question in the case is, whether the ijaradar when he re-let to Salim re-let to him as an under raiyat or as a raiyat of the holding which he had purchased at the auction, that is to say, whether this holding continued. Having regard to the provisions of Section 22(3) of the ...
Bhabani Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal212,61Ind.Cas.818
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for arrears of rent on the basis of a putni lease granted on the 26th May 1832. The substantial question in controversy is, whether the Government revenue was payable by the Zemindar or by the putnidar under the terms of the contrast. The Courts below have answered this question in favour of the Zemindar and have relied on the circumstance that for many years past the Government revenue has been, as a matter of fact, paid by the putnidar. We are of opinion that evidence of conduct was not admissible for the construction of the putni contrast. Evidence of conduct is admissible if the contract is ambiguous in its terms; Hebbert v. Purchas (1870) 3 P.C. 605 at p. 650 : 7 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 458 : 40 L.J. Ecc. 33 : 19 W.R. 898 : 17 E.R. 177. But where, as here, the terms of the contrast are perfectly plain, evidence of conduct is not admissible to vary the terms of the agreement between the parties. North Eastern R...
Debendra Nath Rai Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Pranab Chandra Ghose, Chairma ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal567,60Ind.Cas.284
Asutosh Mookerjees, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that a tax assessed by the Taki Municipality upon him under Section 85 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, is in contravention of law and is consequently null and void.2. The Court of first instance upheld the contention of the plaintiff. Upon appeal, that decision has been reversed by the District Judge.3. The determination of the question in controversy depends upon the interpretation of Section 85 which provides for the imposition by a Municipality of two classes of taxes, tamely, '(a) a tax upon persons occupying holdings within the Municipality according to their circumstances and property within the Municipality' and '(b) a rate on the annual value of holdings situated within the Municipality.' The tax in the resent case has been imposed under Clause (a).4. The contention of the appellant to, that be assessment has been made according to his circumstances and property, not within but out...
Nripendra Kumar, Dutta, Receiver Vs. Nadir Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal124,66Ind.Cas.46
1. This appeal comes from the District of Sylhet in which Bengal Ant VIII of 1869 is still in force and is directed against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of that District by which he has held that an occupancy holding may not be sold in execution of a decree obtained by the sixteen annas landlords for its own arrears.2. In the case of Chandra Benode Kundu v. Sheikh Ala Bux 58 Ind. Cas. 353 : 24 C. W. N. 818 : 31 C. L. J. 510 (F. B.) : 48 C, 184, recently decided by a Special Bench of this Court and reported as Chandra Benode Kundu v. Sheikh Ala Bux 58 Ind. Cas. 353: 24 C. W. N. 818 : 31 C. L. J. 510 (F. B.) : 48 C. 184, it has been shown that in 1834, 1845 and again in 1845 it was held by the Sadar Dewani Adalat that in Bengal occupancy holdings might be fold in execution of degrees for money provided that the sale was at the instance of or with the consent of the landlord.3. It does not appear that this general principle was affected or modified either by Act X of 1859 ...
AinuddIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1920
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.694
1. The question raised in this Rule is whether the proceedings instituted against the petitioners under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code are without jurisdiction.2. It appears that there is a dispute between one Jnanada Sundari Choudhurani and her adopted son, Promode Chandra Roy Chaudhuri, with respect to a Mouza, Nowapara, which is claimed by the former as her personal property, while the latter claims it as part of his adoptive father's estate. On the 26th February 1920 one Akhoy Kumar Dutt, the naib of the lady, put in a petition before the Additional District Magistrate of Mymensingh to the effect that he had gone to the village Nowapara, to collect rents from the tenants, that the opposite party, Promode Chandra, deputed his manager and other officers to obstruct him in realizing rents and drive him from the village, that with the said object the men of the opposite party, about 100 to 125, armed with lathis were hovering in the village and terrorizing the tenants if th...
RahimuddIn Kazi and ors. Vs. Radha Govinda Bhoumik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.238
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal arises out of a rent suit. The landlord claimed the price of (sic) paddy at the rate of eight maunds of paddy par annum, The defendants admitted rent at the rate of Rs. 4 per annum. The first Court dismissed the suit altogether. On appeal by the landlord the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. In disposing of the appeal, the Subordinate Judge admitted a Khatian taken from a recently published Record of Rights (the final publication apparently was made between the date of the Munsif's judgment and the date on which the appeal was heard), and he held that the evidence of the Khatian was enough to turn the scale in favour of the plaintiff.2. Three points are raised before us in second appeal.3. The first is that the Judge was in error in admitting the Khatian at all at that stage. The second is that after having decided to admit it, he ought to have given the defendant an opportunity of producing rebutting evidence, and thirdly, that the Khatian has not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »