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.
Aloke Mohan Saha Vs. the Narayanganj Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.137
1. The petitioner is the owner of a holding situate by the side of the 'long tank' within the Municipality of Narayangunge. In April 1918 he applied for and obtained sanction for the construction of a two-storied building on his holding. After the first storey of the building had nearly reached completion, a notice was served upon him under Section 202 of the Bengal Municipal Act to remove an encroachment alleged to have been made on a portion of the 'long tank.' The petitioner thereupon filed objection under Section 176 of the Act, but it is alleged that the procedure prescribed by Sections 178 and 179 were not followed by the Municipal authorities. The Municipality, however, instituted proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 217 and 218. The latter, among other objections, denied the title of the Municipality to the land upon which the building had been created and denied that he had encroached upon any land of the Municipality. That case was dismissed mainly upon the groun...
Meajan Mondal Vs. Jogendra Nath De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal81,63Ind.Cas.949
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant. His substantial defences in the Courts below were, first, that he had been dispossessed from a part of his holding, namely, plot No. 3 in the kabuliyat which evidences the creation of the tenancy, secondly, that be had never been put into possession of another plot, tamely, plot No. 7, and thirdly, that the suit was defective by reason of non-joinder of some of the tenants as defendants in the suit.2. As regard plot No. 3 the finding of fact is that there has been no dispossession of the tenant defendants from that portion of plot No. 3 leaded out to them.3. With regard to plot No. 7, the finding similarly is that no part of plot No. 7 was ever included in the holding.4. The contention of the tenant-appellant that has been seriously pressed before us is one with regard to defeat of parties. It appears that the original tenant of the holding in question was ore Hemat. He died leavi...
Raj Kumar Das Vs. Panchkori Taluqdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.507
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to eject an under raiyat after notice. The findings of fact arrived at by the Court of first appeal are as follows. Plaintiff is a raiyat. He granted to the defendant a lease which purported to be a lease in perpetuity. He brings this suit in ejectment after service of a sufficient notice to quit under the provisions of Section 49(a)of the Bengal Tenancy Act. On the authority of, amongst other cases, the case of Jarip Khan v. Durfa Bewa 15 Ind. Cas. 76 : 16 C.L.J. 144 : 17 C.W.N. 59, and the case of Gonesh Mondal v. Thanda Namasundrani (1824) 2 Bing. 76 : 27 R.R. 549 : 9 Moore 166 : 2 L.J.C.P. 134 : 130 E.R. 233, it must be held that the lease in question, having been granted and registered in contravention of the provisions of Section 85(2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, is inadmissible in evidence. It is contended before us that the plaintiff a raiyat is precluded from; questioning the validity of this lease by, reason of the doctrine of estopp...
Srimati Gol Asmater Khatun and ors. Vs. Nawab Khajeh Habibulla and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.49
1. This appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit of the nature indicated in Order XXI, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff must pay an ad valorem. Court-fee on the value of the property which is estimated at Rs. 4,000, and this is the point upon which the plaintiff has preferred an appeal. In my opinion the Courts below have taken a wrong view of the matter. This is a case which comes within the principles laid down in the case of Phul Kumari v Ghanshyam Misra 35 C. 202 : 7 C.L.J. 36 : 12 C.W.N. 169 : 10 Bom. L.R. 1 : 5 A.L.J. 10 : 17 M.L.J. 618 : 2 M.L.T. 506 : 14 Bur. L.R. 41 : 35 I.A. 22 (P.C.). I think, therefore, the Court-fee payable was a Court-fee of Rs. 10.2. A preliminary objection, however, has been taken before us that the appeal must fail because an order of abatement has been made so far as it relates to one of the respondents, that is, respondent No. 18. The order referred to is one made by a Bench o...
Janaki Nath Ray Vs. Aswini Kumari Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.736
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by a puisne mortgagee, defendant No. 2. The Brat defendant executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff on the 10th Sravan 1310, The document consisted of three sheets. Tae fasts as found are as follows:2. The mortgagor signed the second sheet in the presence of two witnesses who wrote their names at the foot of the document as having witnessed the signature of the, mortgagor. Then, apparently, some addition was made and a third &h;'e& was added including other properties which I under stand are comprised in the security given to the second defendant, the puisne encumbrancer. Then the third sheet was signed by the mortgagor in the presence of the same witnesses who wrote their names on the second sheet. But so far as third sheet is concerned, the names of those witnesses do not appear on that sheet.3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant, that, this being so, the mortgage cannot be enforced so far as regards the properties comprised in the third ...
Mahamud Masor Mahmud Mea Vs. Zafur Mahmud Ahd ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.702
Greaves, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is, as to whether a provision in a com promise decree providing for interest at 2 per cent. means that interest is payable at that rate monthly or annually. Both the lower Courts have declined to admit evidence to construe the meaning of the expression. We think the proper course is to send back the case to the Court of first instance, in order that that Court, which passed the decree, may construe the decree which it itself passed. If the Court is unable to do so unaided, it seems to us that by virtue of the provisions of Section 95 of the Evidence Act, it will be open to the Court to hear evidence as to the ordinary meaning of such expressions in documents of this nature.2. The result is that we remand the case to the first Court to be dealt with on the line indicated by us.3. Costs in all the Courts are to abide the decision of the Court to which the case is remanded.4. We assess the hearing fee in this appeal at two gold mohurs....
Moti Lal Pal Choudhury in His Own Right and as Executor and Administra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.312
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. These are appeals by the defendants in two suits for recovery of possession of land. The same tract is in dispute in both the suits; but the subject-matters are different shares making up the entirety in the aggregate.2. On the 3rd March 1897 a lease of the disputed land was granted, containing a provision to the following effect: 'you will enjoy the lands of this jama from generation to generation by using it for the purpose of your own residence or for the residence of your own people, if necessary, without in any way altering the character of the lands and by keeping the boundaries intact, and without having the power of making gifts or any sort of alienation. If you or your hairs alienate it, we and our heirs will be entitled to recover khas possession; any objection to the same will be rejected by the Court.' In contravention of this covenant, the land we sold by the lessees to the defendants on the 27th October 1900. One of the present suits was i...
Hon'ble Sir Bijoy Chand Mahatap, Maharajadhiraj Bahadur Vs. Asutosh Ch ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.73
Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant, the Maharaja of Burdwan, in a suit for recovery of money, and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession of land. The fasts material for the decision of the questions in controversy may be briefly stated: The subject-matter of the litigation is a putni taluq, Lot Surajpore, held under the Maharaja of Bardwan by Nanda Lal Lahiri, now deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the Lahiri defendants. The Lahiris defaulted to pay rent to the Maharaja, with the result that proceedings were taken under Regulation VIII of 1819. On the 17th November 1914, the putni taluk was sold and purchased by one Nityananda Singha. The Lahiris thereupon instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale, on the ground that it had been held in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation. On the 7th January 1916, the suit was decreed and the sale was cancelled. It is stated that the Lahiris were subsequently restored to possession of the...
Gour Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Mon Mohini Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal142,62Ind.Cas.476
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against a decision of the District Judge of Hooghly affirming a decision of the Second Sabordinate Judge of Hooghly. the material facts are shortly as follows:--One Shambhu Chandra Das, who died in the year 1882, by his Will appointed as his executors Nilmoni and Srinibash. He also appointed them as shebaits of a certain Thakur named Saligram, and the effect of the Will of Shambhu as construed by this Court was that he created a trust in favour of the idol of the whole of his property, Shambhu left a widow named Saraswati, who is still alive, and a daughter named Mon Mohini who is the respondent in this appeal, She obtained Letters of Administration de bonis-non of the estate of Shambhu. In this capacity Mon Mohini commenced the suit in respect of which this appeal arises against tie defendants as heirs of Nilmony, who died in the year 1914, asking amongst other reliefs that the moveable properties of the debutter estate might ...
Khitipati Roy Vs. Dharani Mohan Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal229,64Ind.Cas.228
Ghose, J.1. In this matter, an order was made in Chambers on the 14th June 1920 on the application of the defendant for the issue of a commission to Mr. S.P. Sarbadhicary, Barrister at Law, authorising him to swear or affirm and examine viva voce Sm. Golap Sundari Debi, widow of Hari Mohan Boy, at Radhanagore in Khanakul in the District of Hooghly or at Calcutta, and Sm, Chamatkar Mohini Debi, wife of Surja Kanta Mukherjee, of No, 17, Ram Chandra Maitra's Lane, Shambazar in Calcutta, as witnesses on behalf of the defendant. This order was by consent of the parties represented by their respective solicitors.2. On the 15th June Mr. M.N. Sen, attorney on behalf of Mr. P.N. Sen, the plaintiff's attorney, appeared in Chambers before me and asked for the revision of the order made on the previous day, on the ground that the plaintiff's attorney, when be consented to the order, had not had before him fall and sufficient facts bearing on the matter of the application for the issue of a commiss...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »