Kolkata Court December 1921 Judgments
Srimati Sasimukhi Chowdhurani and ors. Vs. Srimati Saraswati Sen Gupta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.522
1. This was a suit for rent brought by the plaintiff-appellant against his tenants on the allegation that he has 8 annas share in the jama. He impleaded in the suit defendants Nos. 4 and 5 his co-sharers who alleged that the plaintiff's share was only 7 annas in the jama. Both the Courts below have found against the plaintiff in respect of his share as well as in respect of the jama which he claimed to be Rs. 8 but which has been found to be Rs. 4.2. The plaintiff appeals to this Court only with reference to the decision about his share in the property in suit. The Court of first instance relied chiefly on Exhibit (C) being the judgment in a suit between the parties in which the plaintiff's share was held to be 7 annas. The learned Munsif also referred to Exhibit 2 being the judgment in a suit between the parties relating to some other jama of the disputed tenure and held that that judgment was not admissible in evidence in this case inasmuch as the former suit related to a different j...
Tag this Judgment!Yakub Ali Chowdhuri Vs. Rai Raj Kumar Dutta Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.527
1. The plaintiff respondent brought a suit against the appellant, who is his tenant, under Sections 105 and 105A of the Bengal Tenancy Act for enhancement of rent, under Section 7 of that Act. Both the Courts below have allowed the enhancement prayed.2. The facts are that, in 1839 and 1840, two kabuliyats were executed by the predecessor of the defendant in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiff in respect of two tenures which were subsequently amalgamated and became one tenure held at a jama of Rs. 276 and odd. These kabuliyats are silent as to the liability of the tenure for enhancement of rent. It appears that rent has been paid since the date of these kabuliyats up to the present time at the rate mentioned therein. Subsequently, in 1918, the Record of Rights in respect of these tenures were finally published in which the tenures were mentioned as permanent at fixed rate. The Courts below have held that the kabuliyats produced by the plaintiff sufficiently rebutted the presumpti...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Charan Chakraburtty and ors. Vs. Jitendra Nath Gangully, Minor, b ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.601
1. In this appeal by the defendants against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, affirming the decree of the Munsif at Howrah, three points have been urged before us.2. First, that the Courts below should have reduced to writing the result of the local investigation held by them, and in support of this contention the cases of Raikishori Ghose v. Kumudini Kanta Ghose (2) and Joy Coomer v. Bundhoo Lall (1) have been cited. The learned Subordinate Judge and the learned Munsif visited the locality in order to ascertain if the map which was put in by the plaintiff correctly depicted the locality and it appears that they did not base their judgments on the result of the local inspections held by them. The law as to local inspection is that, when a Court bases its judgment on the result of the local inspection held by it, it ought to enter, the result of such investigation on the record in order to enable the parties to adduce evidence in respect thereof. In this case the Courts ...
Tag this Judgment!isap Ali Vs. Satis Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.504
1. This appeal arises out of an action of ejectment under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim for ejectment on the ground that the defendants are settled raiyats in respect of the homestead from which the plaintiff wanted to eject them and that as such they could not be ejected under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held that the defendants had no occupancy right in the land in suit and were, therefore, liable to eviction under Section 49.2. The defendants have appealed and attacked the judgment of the Court of Appeal below on the ground that the finding arrived at by it with regard to the character of the homestead is not sufficient for the disposal of the issue. The learned Judge says in his judgment that 'only a hut has been erected in this land for temporary use. It may exist from a long time as shown by Exhibit B. Still, it cannot be said to be the indispensable home...
Tag this Judgment!Gurudas Kundu Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Dasa Rathi Haldar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.512
1. We fail to see how we can interfere in this matter under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure.2. Two points have been raised before us, first, that the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have considered the question of misrepresentation and fraud on which point the Court of first instance found for the defendant; and, secondly, that the District Board and the co-sharer landlord of the defendant ought to have been made parties to this suit.3. Apparently, both these points have been satisfactorily dealt with by the learned Subordinate Judge. But if he had committed any error of judgment or of law this Court cannot interfere under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure.4. The Rule is, therefore, discharged with costs. Hearing-fee one gold mohur....
Tag this Judgment!Udoy Chandra Basu and ors. Vs. Mahammad Ali Bepari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.589
1. In this case the only question raised on behalf of the appellants, who were the petitioners before the Settlement Officer, is whether they are precluded from having a fair and equitable rent settled with regard to the land in the occupation of their tenants, the defendants, opposite parties, on the grounds of excess area and that the rate of rent is lower than the prevailing rate and also on account of rise of prices of staple food crops.2. The proceedings were started under Sections 105 and 105 A of the Bengal Tenancy Act The record was finally published on the 26th September 1917. The Assistant Settlement Officer dismissed the application and on appeal the Special Judge has affirmed the decision.3. The first question for decision, as stated in the judgment of the learned Special Judge, was (1) 'whether the defendants rent is consolidated? Is there any excess area and can plaintiffs get any increase on that count?' The learned Judge has found, and we agree with his finding, that th...
Tag this Judgment!Siba Prosad Das Chaudhury Vs. KazimuddIn Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.709
1. The Courts below have disallowed interest from the date of the ex parte decree, i.e., from the 14th August 1903 up to the 12th February 1916, the date on which the ex parte decree was set aside. The learned District Judge was of opinion that the suit was not pending between the date of the ex parte decree and the date when that decree was set aside.2. We do not see how it can be said that the suit was not pending during that period, when the ex parte decree was set aside subsequently. It is not so hard upon the defendant as it seams at first sight; because the defendant did not offer to pay up any money during this period and the rate of interest in two out of the three bonds was not at all high, being only 6 and 8 per cent. per annum respectively. The fact that the delay in the final disposal of the suit took place owing to the laches of the plaintiff should, however, be taken into consideration in dealing with the question of costs.3. We are accordingly of opinion that the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!AmiruddIn Mohammed Vs. Surja NaraIn Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.127
1. We are asked in the rule to set aside an order of the Munsif of Jalpaiguri refuting to issue an injunction restraining the sale of the property in suit in exeacuton of a mortgage decree obtained by the opposite party. The order was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Jalpaiguri.2. The mortgage-decree has been obtained by the opposite party against certain persons alleged to be the heirs of one Nunda Ram Das. The petitioner's claim to be the real heirs of Nanda Raja and have instituted a suit for a declaration that the mortgage-decree is not binding on them. The suit is pending before the Court of first instance and the petitioners have applied for the issue of a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit.3. Apart from the question whether an application like the present one lies to this Court under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, we are of opinion that we ought not to interfere in this matter on the facts of the ease. The petitioners were no parties to the...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Samad Mondal Vs. BasiruddIn Chaudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.220
1. The defendant had a non-transferable occupancy holding which was put up to sale and purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, obtained symbolical possession and not actual possession. He thereupon brought the present suit for declaration of his right by purchase and for possession of the land comprised in the holding, Before entering into his defense, the defendant applied under Order XXI, Rule 90 and Section 47 of the Code for setting aside the sale, That application was dismissed by the Court before the present suit was decided by the Court of first instance. The Court of first instance decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, the auction-purchaser.2. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the sale was not binding as the tenant was not an 'acquiescing party.' He observes: 'The defendant might have avoided the sale for the mere asking of it by a petition.' Evidently ha relied upon one of the principles enunciated in the case of Dayamoyi v. Ananda Mohan Boy Cho...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Bala Debi and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Ghati and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1921
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.286
1. The petitioners in this case, who are parda nashin ladies, invite us to vacate the order of the Munsif dated the 11th February 1921 confirming the sale of the petitioners' property and virtually refusing an application made by them under Order XXI, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code.2. It appears that the property was sold on the 18th December 1920 and purchased by the opposite party for Rs. 730 who deposited the earnest money on that day. On the 4th January 1921 the opposite party deposited the balance of the purchase money and the 22nd of January, was fixed for confirmation of the sale. On the 17th January the judgment-debtors, petitioners before us, deposited the claim and costs with compensation and prayed that the sale might be set aside. On the 22nd January, the date fixed for the confirmation of the sale, the Court passed the following order 'Judgment-debtors Nos. 1 to 5 have deposited the claim costs with compensation money within time. Issue notice on the auction-purchaser. Judg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »