Kolkata Court February 1921 Judgments
Jatindra Nath Ghose and anr. Vs. Sourindra Nath Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.63
1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Subordinate Judge of Barisal in connection with an application for leave to sue as a pauper should not be set aside. The application for leave to sue as a pauper was made by one Surendra Nath Ghose and the petitioners were some of the opposite parties in that case, On the death of Surendra the petitioners inherited the share of the deceased and they applied for being substituted in his place. In their application they stated that they also were paupers unable to pay the Court-fee payable for the suit, and they prayed that they might be substituted in the place of the deceased and also that they might be allowed to proceed with the case as paupers. This was disallowed by the Court below. So far as it was an application for substitution in place of the diseased, we do not think that the petitioners could maintain such an application. The right to make an application to sue as a pauper is a personal right...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Prasanna Guha Choudhuri and anr. Vs. Bhagabati Debya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.324
Newbould, J.1. The facts, so far as they are material for the disposal of this Rule, are as follows: One Chinta Moni Chakrabarti died leaving as his only heir his daughter Soudamini Debya. The petitioners purchased the interest inherited by Soudamini in certain properties left by Chinta Moni. On the 18th of September 19.6, the petitioners as plaintiffs sued for partition and one of the defendants in that suit was Bhagabati Debya--the widow of Chinta Moni's brother. On the 13th of September 1917, the plaintiffs obtained a preliminary decree and, on the 21st of March 1918, they obtained the final decree. Daring the pendency of that suit, Bhagabati Debya set up a Will alleged to have been executed by Chinta Moni, under which she claimed a life-interest in the pro parties in suit and, on the 10th of February 1917, she applied for Letters of Administration of that Will, She was granted Letters of Administration on the 26th of March 1918, that is to say, five days after the final decree in t...
Tag this Judgment!Jadu Nath Mandal and ors. Vs. Rai Charan Koyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.186
Newbould, J.1. The following are the facts as found in this ease. The plaintiffs were the purchasers of a non-transferable occupancy holding, which was sold on the 10th of September 1906 in execution of a money decree. After their purchase, they obtained recognition from the owner of a 5/l2ths share of the landlord's interest. They brought the present suit for establishment of their title to and confirmation of possession of the whole of the holding. The suit was contested by the first defendant, who is one of the co-sharer landlords who hare not recognized the plaintiff's purchase. The defence that he set up was that the owners of the remaining 7/12ths share had obtained some right to the holding by purchase at a sale in execution of a deoree in a suit brought against the alleged heir of the original tenant. But the findings of both the lower Courts are that these co-sharer landlords obtained nothing by that purchase, since the decree was obtained fraudulently and also against a perso...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Karim Bux Vs. Dwarakanath Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.190
Newbould, J.1. In this appeal the only question argued is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The suit out of which the appeal arises was a rent-suit and the Munsif, finding this issue against the plaintiff, dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge has come to a contrary finding and has decreed the suit. The plaintiffs relied on an entry in the Record of Rights, which showed that they had a raiyatee interest in the land in suit and that the defendant was their under-raiyat. The Munsif held that the presumption arising from this entry had been rebutted and the lower Appellate Court tame to a contrary conclusion. I am unable to hold that, in coming to this conclusion, the lower Appellate Court made an error of law. It is contended that the learned District Judge was wrong in holding that the tenancy should be presumed from the fact that the defendant continued in possession of the land after executing the estafanama. The...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chandra Seal Vs. Sheikh Kobadali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.436
Newbould, J.1. This Rule is directed against an appellate order remanding a suit for re-trial by the Munsif of the first Court of Amta. The suit in question was one for compensation for use and occupation, the amount claimed being Rs. 26 and odd. The main question in this Rule ia whether any appeal lay from the Munsif's decision. The plaintiff filed hia claim in the first Court of the Munsif at Amta and the Court was so described in the plaint. At that time and during the trial, the presiding officer of that Court had also powers of a Small Cause Court Judge to try suits valued upto Rs. 100. But in this case, the suit was tried by him in the exercise of his jurisdiction as a Munsif and not in the exercise of his jurisdiction as a Small Cause Court Judge. The contention on behalf of the petitioner finds some support from the decision of a Bench of this Court in Indra Chandra v. Srish Chandra 21 Ind. Cas. 120 : 40 C. 537. But the present case is distinguishable from that case. The suit i...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Lakshmi Sundari Vs. Nityananda Dhupi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.61
1. This appeal arises out of an application for Letters of Administration made by Srimati Lakshmi Sundari to the Court of the District Judge of Chittagong on the 19th of September 1919 in respect of the estate of her deceased husband, Kailash Chunder Dhupi. The deceased died on the 28th of September 1917, 1eaving the petitioner his widow and as his reversionary heirs the objector Nityananda Dhupi and another brother of the name of Nobin Chunder Dhupi. The learned Judge has refused the petitioner's application for grant of Letters of Administration and has granted Letters of Administration to the objector Nityananda Dhupi on terms that he would give security for Rs. 1,500 and that he would make payment to the widow of Rs. 5 a month and deliver to her on demand three pairs of clothes and permit her to reside in her deceased husband's house and so forth. Under Section 23 of the Probate and Administration Act, the widow clearly is entitled to Letters of Administration prima facie. The reve...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Bhusan Shaw Vs. Hari NaraIn Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal202,66Ind.Cas.705
Rankin, J.1. Ganesh Chandra Shaw, a Hindu, governed by the Bengal School of Law, died in 1685 leaving him surviving eight sons and his widow, Nittyakumari Dassi. The second son, Gour, brought a suit in this Court (No. 73 of 1885) for partition. The suit was referred to arbitration and resulted in an award which was confirmed by the Court on the 18th August 1887. By that award the arbitrator 'divided and partitioned the said estate into nine equal parts' and 'allotted one of such parts or shares to each of the parties, as per schedule G hereto annexed, to be held and enjoyed by them absolutely separately, but as the defendants Hari Narain Shaw, Kauai Lal Shaw, Ranoo Lal Shaw, Rashbehary Shaw and Panna Lal Shaw are infants and they have expressed a desire by their mother and natural guardian, Srimati Nittyakumari Dassi, that they will continue to live together joint is food and estate. I have only declared their shares to be Rs. 9,890-5 10 each, but have not divided the same by metes and...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Maitra Vs. Gopal Chandra Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.188
1. We think that this appeal must be allowed. The defendant paid rent at the higher rate for the years 1321, 1322 and 1323, but the Courts below have not allowed the plaintiff's claim at the higher rate for the year 1324 upon a wrong construction of Section 29(1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 'The continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the period for which the rent is claimed' does not mean the period for which rents are claimed collectively in the suit, but means the period in respect of which the rent is payable as a separate cause of action. The point is made clearer, if it is considered what would be the effect if a separate suit had been brought for the rent for the year 1324, as the plaintiff could have done. Clearly, in those circumstances, upon the findings he would have been entitled to a higher rent. The decree of the lower Appellate Court will be set aside so far as it refers to the rent of 1324, and in lieu thereof there will be a decree in favour...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Biswas Vs. Jogendra Nath Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.221
1. This appeal is directed against an order superseding an award of arbitrators. It appears that the plaintiffs, who are the respondents before us, instituted a suit for accounts and other reliefs against three persons Debendra, Siva Sundari and Bapin. This was Suit No. 88 of 1913. There was another suit (Suit No. 187) instituted against Debendra alone for contribution. Pending the suits, the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 Debendra executed an ekrarnama on the 31st January 1919, by which they appointed three persons as arbitrators for settling all disputes between them. On the 3rd May 1919, a petition was presented to the Court reciting that they had appointed three Pleaders as arbitrators. They prayed that the Court might be pleased to appoint them as arbitrators and to send the records of the suits to them. It was further stated that all the terms regarding the manner in which the arbitrators were to settle the disputes, had been embodied in a separate ekramama and that both part...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Arabulla and ors. Vs. Sunamani Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.962
1. We think that this appeal should be allowed. The lower Appellate Court has held as follows: 'The defendants did not take the land from the plaintiffs. They must be considered as trespassers so far as that portion of the land is concerned.' The Subordinate Judge then goes on to say: 'Kartic Ram had no power or authority to settle lands with defendants which were not his.' Now, the case for the defendants was that they held the lands under Kartic Ram. They have, as a matter of fast, been in possession for a period of twenty years. It is clear, in our opinion, from the words we have quoted, that the Subordinate Judge meant that, at the time when the defendants went into possession, they did so under a settlement entered into with Kartic Ram as de facto proprietor. On looking at the judgment of the first Court in which the following passage occurs: 'From the evidence adduced in this case it is quite clear that the defendants Nos. 2 to 7 have been in possession of the land of this suit a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »