Kolkata Court August 1920 Judgments
Nilmani Kar and ors. Vs. Raja Sati Prasad Garga Bahadur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal397,61Ind.Cas.82
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This Reference has been made in connection with an appeal by the tenants, defendants, in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair and equitable rent. One of the questions in controversy was, whether the defendants paid a consolidated rent for the tenancy, or whether they were liable to pay additional rent for increment of area as disclosed by recent survey over the area shown in the rent-roll of the landlords. The Revenue Officer and the Special Judge answered this question in favour of the landlords. On second appeal to this Court, the decision of the Special Judge was assailed on the ground that his conclusion was based upon an erroneous construction of Sub-section (6) of Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, That sub-section is in the following terms:When in a suit under this section, the landlord or tenant proves that, at the time the measurement on which the claim is based, was made, there existed, in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Abbas Ali Sarkar Vs. SalimuddIn Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.692
Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession on redemption. The subject-matter of the litigation is a non-transferable occupancy holding, which originally belonged to one Kamal Changa. On the 23th August 1906 the occupancy raiyat executed a mortgage of the holding by way of conditional sale to the present defendant. On the 14th December 1912 the mortgagor conveyed the holding to the plaintiff. The result was that as against the landlord the subject-matter of the transfer was extinguished and the plaintiff did not as against him acquire a valid title to the holding on the basis of his conveyance. The position of the mortgagee was also imperilled, because the mortgagor, so long as be retained the tenancy, would be held liable for the rent by the landlord, but as soon as he had parted with his interest in the holding, the landlord would be entitled to treat the tenancy as forfeited and would be competent to re-enter upon ejectment of the...
Tag this Judgment!Soudamini Dassi Vs. Bahari Lal Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.535
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree.2. It appears that the respondents brought a suit for a declaration that certain property attached by the appellant in execution of a money decree against one Troilokbya belonged to them by right of purchase from the latter before attachment, and was not liable to attachment and tale in execution of the decree, and also prayed for a democracy injunction staying the pale. The suit was amicably fettled and a petition of compromise was filed in Court on the Sid January 1918. Subsequently, difference arose between the particle, and the Court, slier faking evidence in the matter, settled the terms of the compromise which were to the effect that Rs. 392 11 was due from Tricky to the appellant, that the respondents (the plaintiffs) would execute a mortgage-bond for Rs. 339211 cut of which Rs. 50 was to be paid at the time of revision of the bond, the balance being payable under the bond in installments of Rs. 5 per month, that ...
Tag this Judgment!Annada Mohan Roy Vs. Gour Mohan Mallik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal501,65Ind.Cas.27
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting, C.J.1.This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of Mr. Justice Greaves in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale executed by the defendant on the 7th May 1908 and confirmed on the 27th November 1909. The subject matter of the agreement is a share of the estate left by one Gopal Lal Seal, the maternal uncle of the defendant. Gopal Lal Seal died intestate on the 25th May 1902, leaving him surviving two widows Kumudini and Nayan Manjari and five nephews (sons of sisters) Jogendra, Kanta Mohan, Giri Mohan, Gour Mohan and Panchanan, After the death of Gopal Lal Seal, a Will was set up which this Court pronounced to be a forgery on the 3rd August 1932; this decision was upheld on appeal by the Judicial Committee on the 18th March 1909. The position consequently was that the estate left by Gopal Lal Seal vested in his two widows with right of survivorship inter se. On the death of both of them, the estate would pass to such of the nephews a...
Tag this Judgment!Rakshab Mandal and anr. Vs. Tarangini Deyi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal332,62Ind.Cas.448
Greaves, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs under the following circumstances. They sued for khas possesion of certain lands and to establish their 'title through one Bamamoyi, who took a lease of these lands in 1908; she died in July 1913, her husband Thakurdas pre-deceased her as also her son Sashi, who left him surviving his widow Saroda, defendant No. 2, an infant; Thakurdas had a cousin Arun, who survived him, and two nephews, the sons of a deceased cousin Madhusudan, who are the appellants. On the 7th April 1915 the father of Saroda, as her guardian, purported to sell to the first defendant the lands in suit. On the 9th June 1915 the plaintiffs obtained Letters of Administration to Bamamoyi's estate from the Hooghly Court and as such administrators commenced the present suit. The Munsif decreed the suit with costs and awarded Rs. 5 as wasilat against the first defendant. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the Munsif, holding that th...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Mitra Vs. Emperor on the Complaint of Manmotha Nath Mit ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.846
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This Rule arises out of a proceeding taken under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The person 'upon whom the conditional notice under that section was made appeared to show cause and at the same time claimed the appointment of a Jury. The Magistrate forthwith proceeded to appoint a Jury, The Jury thus appointed submitted three reports; three of the Jurors by two separate reports signed by two and one respectively expressed the opinion that the way in question was not a public way, while the other two were of opinion that and the way in question was a public way and that the conditional order of the Magistrate should be made absolute. The Magistrate for certain reasons, into which we need not enter, refused to accept the verdict or opinion of the majority of the Jury, and transferred the case to another Magistrate in order that it should be dealt with in the manner provided in Section 137 of the Code. The Magistrate some to the conclusion th...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Indian Motor Taxi Cab Company Limited Vs. the Corporation ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal107,61Ind.Cas.641
Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.1. This Rule was issued nailing upon the Chairman of the Calcutta Municipality and the Municipal Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of, and the sentence on, the petitioner for the infringement of bye-law No. 10 framed under Clause (18) of Section 559 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1899, should not be set aside. The Magistrate has found that a motor oar of the petitioner was left in a public street unattended and that consequently there was a breach of the bye-law mentioned. We are of opinion that, upon the facts found by the Magistrate, his conclusion must be maintained.2. The real controversy it, whether bye-law No. 10, framed under Clause (18) of Section 559 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, was superseded by implication when Rule 24 was framed under Section 11, Sub-section 2, Clauses (f) and (i) of the Indian Motor--Vehicles Act, 1914, Section 559, Sub-section (18) of the Calcutta Municipal Act provides that 'the general committee may make bye--la...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath Chatterjee and anr. Vs. Saroj Bandhu Bhattacharjee and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal408,70Ind.Cas.923
1. This appeal arises out or a suit to recover possession of the property in dispute. The plaintiffs alleged that certain persons (who may be described as the Mandals) mortgaged the property in suit to their maternal grandfather Surjya Kant Bhattacharjee, that Surjj'a Kant executed a Will in favour of his daughter Gopendra Bala (the mother of the plaintiffs), that after the death of Surjya Kant the Mandals executed a mortgage kistbandi in favour of Gopendra Bala, and that on her death, the plaintiffs having succeeded to the estate of their maternal grandfather as heirs, brought a suit upon the mortgage and in execution of the decree obtained upon it, purchased the propel and obtained symbolical possession, but that the defendants were withholding possession from the plaintiffs. Some of the defendants are the mortgagees or their heirs, and the others are purchasers of portions of the property. The main points in dispute in the suit were, first, whether the plaintiff's mother, Gopendra B...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Behari Ghosh Vs. Hari Charan Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.628
1. In this appeal the only point which has to be decided is whether the purchaser at an auction sale can recover by suit from the decree-holder the purchase money when it has been found that the judgment-debtor has no interest in the property sold. The lower Appellate Court relying on the authority of the case of Juranu Mahamad v. Jathi Mahamed 46 Ind. Cas. 783 : 22 C.W.N. 760, held that the suit was not maintainable.2. On behalf of the appellant, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in an unreported case, Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1197 of 1914 decided on the 2nd April 1917, Prasanna Kumar v. Ibrahim Mirza 41 Ind. Cas. 924, in which Fletcher and Smither, JJ., took an opposite view. We think we should follow the case on which the learned Subordinate Judge has relied. The decision of Chatterjee and Richardson, JJ., in that case is based on a decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Dorah Ally Khan v. Abdool Azeez 5 I.A. 116 : 3 C. 806 : 2 C.L.R. 529 : 3 Suth. P....
Tag this Judgment!Bishan Singh Vs. Ram Bahal Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.741
1. This is an appeal against a decree awarding the plaintiff-respondent Rs. 61-8-0 as damages for malicious prosecution. On behalf of the appellant defendant No. 2 reliance is plated on a decision of this Court in the case of Golap Jan v. Bhola Nath 11 lnd. Cas. 311 : 38 C. 880 : 15 C.W.N. 917. That decision at first sight seems to support his contention that a suit for malicious prosecution is not maintainable when no process has been issued against the plaintiff. But that case was considered and distinguished in a later decision of this Court in the case of Bishun Pergash Narayan Singh v. Fulman Singh 27 Ind. Cas. 449 : 19 C.W.N. 935 : 20 C.L.J. 518, and it was there held that an action for damages for malicious prosecution would lie against a person, if that person maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause sets the machinery of the criminal law in motion, and that the prosecution commences as soon as the complaint is made to the Magistrate, irrespective of the result of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »