Kolkata Court December 1921 Judgments
Syed Mohammed Nural Huq Vs. Baksu Mandal and Korban Choudhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.509
1. The plaintiff brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for recovery of possession of the land in dispute after declaration of his title thereto.The defendants, representing the villagers, set up a right of passage for men and cattle over the land, they further set up a right of passage of rain water of the village through the disputed land to the Sana tank to its west from which water is taken for irrigation of neighbouring lands and also a right to bale out water from it for purposes of irrigation.2. The Court of first instance held that the defendants had proved the rights set up. Accordingly, the plaintiff's title to the land was declared subject to the rights found in favour of the defendants.3. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed that decision, and gave the plaintiff a decree for possession. He has come to the conclusion that the defendants failed to prove the rights set up by them. That would, no doubt, be conclusive in second appeal. But it appears tha...
Tag this Judgment!Adhor Chandra Dass Vs. Rameswar Manna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.517
1. In this case the appellant brought a suit for rent at the rate of Rs. 110 odd against the respondent and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree he attached certain goods of the plaintiff and the latter, in order to get back his goods, paid Rs. 50 in cash and promised to pay the balance of the decree within a month. Within that time he brought the present suit for a declaration that the decree was fraudulent and not binding upon him.2. The Court of Appeal below has come to the conclusion that the rent was not Rs. 110 odd, as was claimed by the appellant in the previous suit, but was Rs. 82 odd only. It is found that the promise to pay the decretal debt was clearly owing to undue influence' (by which the learned Subordinate Judge probably means 'undue pressure') and that the present plaintiff did not make the promise as a free agent.3. The case thus comes under Section 72 of the Contrast Act [see illustration (b) of that section]. As pointed out by the Judicial Committee, the w...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Mazumdar and on His Death His Heir and Legal Representative ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.579
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for a declaration of right of way over a strip of land belonging to the defendants. From the pleadings and findings of the Courts below we take it that the path claimed was a private path. Both the Courts below have found in favour of the plaintiff, but they have differed as to the extent of the user. The Court of first instance gives the plaintiff a general right of way including the right of way for carriages, carts palanquins, processions, elephants, corpses, etc. On appeal by the defendants the lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff claiming a right of way over another's property he should not be allowed a higher right than what he has been able to prove. On the evidence he has found that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the user of the pathway for men, carts and palanquins. The said Court has accordingly restricted the use of the path to these three modes of user and disallowed the general righ...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Krishna Das Vs. Matiyar Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.743
1. The only question involved in the appeal is, what is the boundary line between the tenure of the plaintiff and that of the defendant. The tenures are situated side by side.2. The Courts below have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove title and possession of the land.3. On behalf of the appellant, reliance is placed on the case of Lukhi Narain Jagadeb v. Jadu Nath Deo 21 C 504 : 21 1. A. 39 : 6 Sar. P.C.J. 408 : 10 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 966 (P. C) where it was held that 'on questions of boundary, specially where the dividing line in dispute runs through waste lands which have not been the subject of definite possession, the rule as to the burden of proving the affirmative is not applicable. The litigants are in the position of counter claimants and both parties are bound to do what they can to aid the Court in ascertaining the true line'.4. But the duty of both parties to aid the Court in ascertaining the true line is in case where the dividing line in dispute runs through waste la...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Re Archibald Gilchrist Peace
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal771,70Ind.Cas.507
Rankin, J.1. This is an application, brought by three creditors against the Official Assignee. The insolvent, one Archibald Gilchrist Peace, was adjudicated on the 7th August 1918, and on the same day filed his schedule of affairs in which he disclosed the number of his creditors as two. The first creditor, Bijoy Singh Duduria, was put down as a creditor for Rupees 12,340-11-0, and the consideration was this: Sent to the insolvent's late firm of Gilchrist Peace and Ross.' The second creditor is Kathleen Irene Marie Paul Ghose. The amount is Rs. 27,800 and the consideration is stated in the same words as in the case already mentioned. The present applicants filed their several proofs of debts by the 7th May 1919. What happened thereafter was that Mr. Faulkner, as Official Assignee, being told by the insolvent that a friend would provide money to enable these two creditors to be paid off to their satisfaction, did in fact utilise the assets of the estate which had come to his hands, toge...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Behari Chattapadhya and ors. Vs. Jogendranath Bandopadhya and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.479
1. In this case, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal evidently under Order XLI Rule 11. The order runs as follow?: 'Heard Pleader. The appeal is summarily dismissed.' It is contended on behalf of the appellant before us that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 11, are controlled by those of Order XLI, Rule 31.2. There is a divergence of opinion on the point in the several High Courts in India. In our Court, in the case of Rami Deka v. Brojo Nath Saikia 25 C. 97 : 1 C.W.N. 692 13 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 66, where the judgment was 'Suit laid at Rs. 480, value of buffaloes. Appeal rejected under Section 551, Civil Procedure Code', it was held that the dismissal of an appeal under Section 551. Civil Procedure Code, by a Court whose decision may be the subject of an appeal does not relieve the Court from the necessity of writing a judgment which, according to the provisions of Section 574 of the Code, should show the points raised, the decision upon those points and the reasons for decidi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rakib Khan Vs. Jalal Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.584
1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether, in a case where the tenure-bolder bought the subordinate raiyati interest before the amendment of Section 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in 1907, the subordinate right lost its separate existence and got merged in the superior right after the amending Act of 1907 same into force; or, in other words, whether the amending Act of 1907 has any retrospective effect.2. The plaintiff was a co sharer of a howla under which there was a raiyati right which was purchased by the plaintiff on the 18th Magh 1312 B.S. and subsequently be let out to the defendant's predecessor on the 18th Pous 1315 in under-raiyati right for 9 years which term expired in the end of 1323 B.S. He has consequently brought this suit under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to secure ejectment of the defendants from the lands in suit.3. The defence is that the subordinate right having got merged in the superior right alter 1907 the defendants occupy the status of ...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chandra Basu Vs. Arip Shaikh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.810
1. It is contended on behalf of the appellant in this case that the judgment-debtor is not entitled to raise the objection to the execution of the decree.2. There is no doubt that the decree which has been obtained against the judgment-debtor is binding upon him and that in execution proceedings he cannot go behind the decree. But the objection raised by him was that the decree could not be executed under the special procedure prescribed by Chapter XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It was competent to the judgment-debtor to raise such objection.3. The decree, however, can be executed as a decree for money under the Civil Procedure Code and the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor in the lands can be put up to sale. The judgment-debtor cannot object to such a course being adopted.4. We think, in these circumstances, that the order of the Court below, in so far as it dismissed the application for execution entirely, should be set aside and the case sent back to the Court of firs...
Tag this Judgment!Giribala Dasi Vs. Prianath Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.476
1. This Rule arises out of an application under Order XXI, Rule 100, Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner's case is that she had purchased the property, which is a non-transferable occupancy holding, in execution of a mortgage-decree against the tenant some time before the sale brought about by the opposite party in execution of a rent-decree. The opposite party who is a landlord has purchased the holding in execution of that rent-decree and has obtained possession of the property through Court dispossessing the petitioner.2. The learned Munsif before whom the application was made has come to the conclusion that the applicant has no locus standi, that is, she is not competent to make the, application under Rule 100, Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure. He has relied mainly upon the case of Panchratan Koeri v. Ram Sahay 43 Ind. Cas. 969 : 3 P.L.J. 579 : 4 P.L.W. in which it has been held that where a person is a representative within the meaning of Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure; he...
Tag this Judgment!Sital Prosad Poddar and ors. Vs. Kaifut Sheikh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.367
1. This Rule is directed against the order of the Munsif of Lalbagh exercising Small Cause Court jurisdiction dismissing the plaintiff's suit on two grounds: first, that the debt was owing to the plaintiff's father and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable without a certificate under Act VII of 1889, and secondly, that as some of the plaintiffs have been made parties after period of limitation the suit is barred under Section 22 of the Limitation Act.2. With regard to the first point it is now beyond controversy that in the case of a family governed by Mitakshara Law as the plaintiff's, family appears to be Succession Certificate is not necessary before bringing a suit of this nature.3. As regards the second point the learned Munsif says: 'The co-parceners were made parties on 6th June 1921, The suit was on that date clearly barred.' This finding, in our opinion, is not sufficient to hold the suit barred. There may be circumstances, as existed in various cases (See the cases of Thak...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »