Kolkata Court August 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.
Endaj Ali Biswas and anr. Vs. Arjun Chandra Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.704
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession on establishment of title of a certain occupancy holding.2. The plaintiff, it appears, was the mortgagee from the original tenant and in execution of the decree obtained on his mortgage, proceeded to put the property to sale and himself became the purchaser. When he proceeded to take possession, he found the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are, the appellants before us, in possession am according to him, thereafter discovered the the holding which he had purchased in execution of the mortgage decree had already been put to Bale and bought by the land lords in execution of a previous decree for rent. He next proceeded to apply to have the sale set aside. He succeeded it this application and had the sale set aside on the 5th March 1919, But it transpired that though aware of the fact that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession. of the holding and in possession by virtue of a settlement effected by the...
Jyotish Chandra Dutt Vs. Atit Saha Kinkar Shah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.275
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage-bond and the only question is the amount of interest which the plaintiff is entitled to recover. The bond provided interest at 24 per cent. per annum. The Courts below have granted the plaintiff a decree on the basis of interest at 12 per cent. per annum. The finding of the lower Appellate Court is, that there was substantial security for the can and consequently interest at 24 per cent. per annum is too high and unconscionable. It has further been found that the creditor was in a position to dominate the will of his borrower, and that the plaintiff-appellant, has been unable to discharge the burden thrown upon him by Clause (3) of Section 16 of the Contract Act and show that the stipulation for interest was not induced by undue influence. On these findings we think the decree of the lower Appellate Court must be upheld. The present case is a very different case from the cases similar to the cases of Bejoy Kumar Aidya v. Satish Chandra ...
Manmatha Nath Biswas and anr. and Jitendra Nath Roy Vs. Khirod Gobinda ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.501
1. These two appeals arise out of two rent-suits. The plaintiffs claim rent on the Record of Rights from which it appears that the plaintiffs held as settlement-holders under Government in a khas mahal and the defendants are tenants under them.2. The defense set up is that the defendants held the land by virtue of a kaimi lease granted by certain patnidars, the plaintiffs in this suit having also an interest in that patni.3. The first Court held that the defendants established their plea and dismissed the suit.4. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed this decision and decreed the suite, holding, that Section 104 H of the Bengal Tenancy Act gave a finality to the rents settled in the Record of Rights. The defendants, we should mention, had attacked the Record of Rights by a suit under Section 104 H which was dismissed. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Judge is right and it is clearly supported by the authority of the cases of Prasanna Kumar Adhikari v. Rachimuddin Howla...
Mani Tara Bose Wife of Madhu Sudan Bose Vs. Daliuddi Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.335
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent of a certain occupation holding The annual rent payable is the sum of 24 rupees, 4 annas. The suit is based upon a kabuliyat executed by the father of defendant No. 1. The kabuliyat provides that that rent shall be parable in 4 kids of four unequal amounts and that, on default in any one instalment, the arrears will carry interest at the rate of one anna per rupee per month.2. The only question that have been argued before us, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate specified in the kabuliyat and decency, whether it should have been deoided in this suit that the defendant No. 1 is the sole tenant in respect of this holding.3. With regard to interest, both the Courts below were of opinion that the rate was exorbitant and, therefore, gave a decree for interest at the rate of 12/1/2 percent. only. In this, we think both the Courts have fallen into error. The rate of interest no doubt is high. But Here is no evidence to show th...
In Re: Faezulla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.522
1. The appellant before us was convicted by the Sessions Judge of Sylhet, on two charges framed under Section 326, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code. He was tried before the Sessions Judge sitting with Assessors along with another accused who has been acquitted.2. It is quite clear that serious injuries amounting beyond doubt to grievous hurt were inflicted on two persons named Siddek and Rueshan by means of sharp acctting instruments such as does.3. The evidence shows that there was a quarrel between Siddek and another man named Wajid, with referenda to the use of a small irrigation channel. Wajid was in possession, so to speak, of the channel when Siddek interfered with his user of it by diverting the water to his own land. Upon that the quarrel arose and there followed a somewhat confused affray or melee in which others joined.4. The learned Sessions Judge, in the accurse of his very fair judgment, has certainly not minimzed the discrepancies to be found in the evidence...
Nripendra Kumar Dutta, Receiver to the Estate of Late Gobinda Lal Das ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.843
Panton, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants in a scat for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1321 to 1324 B.S. The defendant who appeals is a Receiver appointed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet, He is the Receiver to the estate of the late Gobinda Lal Das Gupta and others, who are so-sharer proprietors with the plaintiff. The other defendants are raiyats in occupation of the land for the rent of which the suit was brought. The Munsif dismissed the suit as against the raiyats but has decreed it against the Receiver. This judgment was confirmed on appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Sylhet. The Receiver now appeals, and on his behalf the first point taken is that, the suit could not proceed against him by reason of the permission of, the Court not having been properly taken. If appears that the suit was instituted on the 18th April 1918. On the 13th September 1918 an application was made to the Subordinate Judge for permission to sue the Receiver, and per...
Shashi Bhusan Moral Vs. Deb Nath Moral and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.705
1. This appeal arises out of what was originally a suit in ejectment. One Bhagaban Sardar had an occupancy holding of 45 bighas which he mortgaged to This plaintiff in 1318. The plaintiff sued on this mortgage, obtained a decree and in execution of that decree purchased that holding in 1916 and subsequently took symbolical possession. The defendant No. 4, who is the sole contesting defendant, admittedly was put in possession of the land by the plaintiff's mortgagor in the year before the mortgage was executed. On these findings the first Court gave the plaintiff a decree declaring his title to the land but refusing khat possession as the tenancy of defendant No. 4, having been created prior to the mortgage, the plaintiff obtained Bhagaban's interest subject to that tenancy, On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the finding that no consideration passed for the mortgage.2. We are unable to uphold this decision. Though the defendant No. 4 set up the title in h...
Nibaran Chandra Sen Gupta and anr. Vs. Sashi Bhusan Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.729
1. The plaintiff and the defendants in this case are cousin, the plaintiffs being the sons of the younger brother of defendant's father. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover 8 annas interest in several item of property described in the schedule to the plaint and were partially successful. In the present appeal, trough the other items have not been expressly abandoned, the plaintiff's claim to the, immoveable property described in the schedule kha to the plaint has been pressed.2. It is contended, as was contended before the lower Courts, that as this property was acquired in 130 and the family was admittedly joint in mew, estate and worship up to 1303 B., tie onus of proving that the property was the self acquired property of defendant No. 1 lay on the defendant. This property as acquired when the fathers of he plaintiffs and the defendants were both living. Having regard to this fact, we think the lower Courts were right in applying the decision in sarada Prasad Ray v. Mahaniitd...
Sudhanya Santra and anr. Vs. Basanta Kumar Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.194
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a rant suit which was heard by a Munsif who was specially empowered under Section 153 of the Bengal Tenanay Act. The plaintiffs claimed 16 annas rent from the defendants on the allegation that they had inherited a 6 annas and 8-gundas share in the malki right for their mother and 9-annas and 12 gunias ijara right from their father. The contesting defendants admitted the plaintiffs mal right to the extent of 6-annas and 8 gundas but denied the existence of any ijara tight. The Munsif found that the plaintiffs established their iiara right as well as the admitted maiki right and gave the plaintiffs a decree for the rent claimed. On appeal the learned District Judge held that no appeal lay, citing as an authority, the case of Bavlya Nath Bahara v. Dhon Krishna Sirkar 5 C.W.N. 515. Against this decision of the lower Appellate Court this appeal has been preferred and the appellants have also obtained a Rule in case it should be held that no second ap...
Sheikh Rahimmaddi Vs. Emperor at the Prosecution of Dwarka Nath Basist ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.173
1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Dacca to show cause why the appeal heard by the Additional District Magistrate should not be re-heard.2. No one appears to show cause, but the Trying Magistrate has sent up an explanation.3. The only order passed on appeal runs as follows: 'Heard Pleader, Appeal summarily dismissed.'4. The learned Magistrate says in his letter that, 'there is nothing in Section 421 which requires the Appellate Court to assign reasons for dismissing appeals summarily, it is sufficient if it thinks that there is no sufficient ground for interfering'.5. It appears, however, that there were disputed questions of fact in this case. A large number of witnesses were examined on both sides upon the question of possession and there were a large number of documents also. The Court of first instance discussed the evidence and came to certain findings. In these circumstance, we think that the appeal should not have been summarily dismissed without sending f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›