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.
Moesh Chandra De Vs. Kali Kanta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.708
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff who purchased a separate account in a sale held under Act XI (B.C.) of 1859. The first Court gave a decree for joint possession but left open the question as to the identity of the plaint lance with the land in the mahal. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was only a benamdar and, therefore, could not maintain the suit. But be held that, if it had not been for the fact that the plaintiff was a benamdar he would have been entitled to joint possession. He also held that there was no reason for doubting the identity of the suit-land with the land of the mahal. It is conceded by the learned Vakil for the respondent that, since the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee reported as Muhammad Mahbvb Alt Khan v. Bharat Indu 53 Ind. Cas. 54 : 23 C.W.N. 321 : (1919) M.W.N. 507 (P.C.) the decision of the Subordinate Judge en the question of banaimi cannot be supported. ...
Chaitanya Krishna Mandal Vs. Soudhyamoni Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal555,64Ind.Cas.773
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of an 8-anna share of a certain holding on establishment of his title there to. The holding in suit, it appears, originally belonged to one Sital Sital died some 40 years before suit and thereupon the holding descended to his sons, one Haran and one Narain. Narain and Haran lived jointly until the death of Narain some 25 to 36 years before suit, Narain died leaving a widow named Ramani, who has a daughter Umasundari, who again has two sons. They are defendants Nos. 17 to 20 in this suit. Haran died 20 years before suit leaving a widow Soudbyamoni, who is defendant No. 1. The findings are that after the death of Narain the two branches of the family and after the death of Haran the two widows lived jointly until at a time not less than 15 years before suit, the widow of Narain, i.e, defendant No. 17, became a Vaishnavi, left the home of Sital, Haran and Narain and thereafter lived either on alms or in the...
Harish Chandra Guha Vs. Nripendra Coomar Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.719
Teunon, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of a certain holding.2. The facts, as found by the Courts below, are as follows: The original tenant was defendant No. 6. In execution of a decree for arrears of rent the holding was purchased by the landlord-decree-holder the present plaintiff, the plaintiff was put into possession on the 19th of March 1911, and continued in possession until April 1914 when he was dispossessed by defendant No. 1, the certified purchaser acting in collusion with the other defendants. On these findings the suit was decreed in both the Courts below. Defendant No. 1 now appeals to this Court, and his contention before us is that the suit is barred by reason of the provisions of Section 66 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, contends that Section 66 is not applicable, and further relies on his possession for more than three years after his purchase.3. In support of the plaintif...
Hari Nath Bandopadhya Vs. Promatha Nath Dey Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal127,64Ind.Cas.747
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract. The contract was for the grant of a patni lease, and the only question in the appeal is whether a certain document described as a 'bainapatra,'' that is, a document evidencing the payment of earnest money, not being registered, is admissible in evidence. The contention of the defendant respondents is that the document in an 'agreement to lease' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Registration Act, and that under Section 17 of the said Act registration was compulsory.2. The contention of the plaintiff appellant on the other hand is that the bainapatra is primarily an acknowledgment of receipt of money and thereafter a mere agreement creating in the plaintiff a right to obtain a document of title within the meaning of Clause (v) of Section 17(2) of the said Act. The essential portions of the document read as follows:This bainapatra for granting patni of (my) share in (a) Zemindary is executed in the year 1318 ...
Kumud Ban Mohunt Vs. Tripura Charan Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal783,60Ind.Cas.464
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. We are invited in this Rule to consider the propriety of an order made by the District Judge with regard to the annual budget of the Sita Kundu Temple, which is the subject matter of a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, in his Court.2. The litigation has been pending for many years. On the 20th November 1911 an appeal was preferred to this Court against the decision of the District Judge declining to remove the late Mahant. In this Court a decree was made by consent of parties, on the 5th February 1915, and a scheme was drawn up, on the model of the scheme sanctioned by the Judicial commitee in the case of Prayag Doss Ji Varu v. Terumala Srirangacharla Varu 30 M. 138 : 11 C.W.N. 442 : 9 Bom. L.R. 588 : 2 M.L.T. 119 : 17 M.L.J. 236 : 34 I.A. 78, and applied by this Court in Umeshananda Dut Jha v. Ravaneshwar Prosad Singh 17 Ind. Cas. 969 : 16 C.L.J. 431 : 17 C.W.N. 841, One of the directions given in the scheme was that the Mahant, two mo...
Radha Raman Saha Banikya Vs. Sitanath Banikya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.738
1. This Rule is directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, by which he disposes of an application made for the review of an order made by his predecessor-in office on 3rd August 1918. The order arises oat of an application made by the petitioner before us for permission to sue in forma pruperis Permission was granted on 3rd August 1918 and the application for review was made by the opposite party who was the first defendant in the proposed suit. This application was made on the ground that when the petitioner-the applicant for permission to sue in forma pauperis-was examined under the provisions of Order XXXIII, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, he was refused an opportunity of cross examining the applicant on the merit of his claim. In the cases reported in Nawab Bahadur of Uurshidabad v, Harish Chandra Acharjee 11 Ind. Cas. 55 : 13 C.L.J. 593 and in Jogendra Narayan Bay v. Dwga Charan Guha 52 Ind. Cas. 610 : 46 C. 651 it has been held that the Court, in consider...
Chairman of the Commissioners of the Joynagar Municipality Vs. Srimati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal485,61Ind.Cas.511
Teunon, J.1. These second appeals arise out of certain suits brought by tax--payers occupying holdings within the Joynagar Municipality to have it declared that the assessments made upon them by the Commissioners in respect both of personal tax under the provisions of Sections 85 and 87 of the Bengal Municipal Act and also of latrine fees or tax under the provisions of Chapter IX are illegal and ultra vires. As regards the personal tax, the plaintiffs have succeeded in both the lower Courts, while as regards latrine tax they have failed in all cases but one. The appeals to this Court have been preferred by the Municipal Commissioners.2. As regards latrine tax, the point is a small one. The holding in question was valued at Rs. 436. The scale fixed by the Commissioner under the provisions of Section 321 is 2 par cent. on the annual value. In the present oases the fee should, therefore, have been, say, Rs. 8-11-6, while the assessment is Rs. 8-12-0. As it has been found that, as regards ...
Ali Mohammad Mondal and ors. Vs. Fakiruddi Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.643
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Maldah, and the opposite party (who are the first party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code), to show cause why the order of the District Magistrate of Mildah, date the 30th April, 1920, should not be set aside on the 2nd and 3rd grounds mentioned in the petition, or why such other order should not be made as to this Court may seem proper,2. The petitioners are tenant holding lands as occupancy raiyats under the Mathurapur Zemindari concern in the District of Maldah and were the second party, while the opposite party, who are the manager and other officers of the concern and the lessees under them, were the first party to the proceedings under Section 145.3. The dispute between the Mathurapur Zemindari Concern and the tenants relates to the right to grow and collect lac on plum trees standing on lands comprised in the holdings of tenants.4. The proceedings under Section 145 were started upon a Police...
Ambika Charan Hazra Vs. Bhani Ram Rathi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.219
1. This Rule is directed against an appellate order made by the District Judge of Alipur. The appeal before him was directed against an order made by the Subordinate Judge of the 24 Pargannas, by which that Subordinate Judge granted an application for review of judgment. It is argued before us that the learned Subordinate Judge has not come to the necessary findings which would justify a grant of the application for review. But we think that when the Subordinate Judge's judgment is read as a whole he has come to the necessary findings, namely, that there had been a discovery of new evidence, that that new evidence was of an important character and so important as to justify the grant of the application for review. He has further some to the finding on the evidence adduced before him, which was legal evidence, that this new and important evidence was not in the possession or within the knowledge of the applicant at the time of trial and could not be produced in the course of that trial....
Roy Jatindranath Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Ajodhaya Nath Nandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.743
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. We are of opinion that the decree made by the District Judge in this case must be affirmed.2. The plaintiffs claim additional rent for increased area. That claim is based on contract of tenancy, dated the 28th April 1808, entered into between the predecessors of the defendants on the one baud and the Sardars on the other. That Kabuliat contained a provision to the following effect: 'You have let out the said 300 bighas of land at a rental of Rs, 1 per bigha including cesses aggregating Rs. 300... If the rent-land is measured by your landlords, (i.e. the Bhanja gantidars) we shall accept the same and pay for increased land at the aforesaid rate.' The tenancy of the Sardar has some to an end and the interest of the Bhanja gantidars has vested in the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled to increased rent for increased land, when the condition precedent has been fulfilled and not earlier, namely, when there has been measurement of the land ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »