Kolkata Court February 1921 Judgments
Parbati Majhi and anr. Vs. Digpati Majhi and Surja Kumar Majhi and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.465
1. Three points have been argued in this appeal. The first is that the question of adverse possession, which was taken in the lower Appellate Court, was not taken in the first Court. With regard to this, we tan only say that the point was raised in the plaint. It was mentioned in the written statement and was comprised in the very general issues which were settled. If the defendants have any complaint to make with regard to this, it is due to the fast that they did not ask the Court to settle the issues in a more precise form and raising a question of fast. We do not think there is any substance in this objection.2. The next point which has been argued is that the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has wrongly admitted in evidence in particular, a partition deed between the ancestors of the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and also a judgment and decree in a suit between the predecessor of the defendant No. 4 as plaintiff and the predecessor of the defendants Nos. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnupada Dey Vs. Chairman of the Maniktolla Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.351
Cuming, J.1. The facts are as follows:--The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 123, Bagmari Road, and he was sued in the Small Cause Court at Sealdah by the Chairman of the Municipality of Manicktolla for the Municipal taxes of the holding in question. His contention is that he is not liable for the taxes for lighting and water but that the occupiers of the holding are liable. His case is that the holding has been leased out jointly to two persons, Kuch Behary Bag and Haripada Bag, and that under Section 279, Section 310 and Section 312 of the Municipal Act, they are liable for the lighting and water rates.2. The Municipality contend that the petitioner has not proved that the holding is in the joint occupation of these two tenants.3. They contend that it is for the petitioner to show that there are tenants in joint occupation of the whole holding.4. The petitioner would seem to contend, on the other hand, that it is for the Municipality to show that the two tenants are not in joi...
Tag this Judgment!Jamir Howladar-principal Vs. Arabjan Bibi and on Her Death Some of Her ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.273
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of mortgage, and the question involved in the appeal is whether the suit was premature. The mortgage bond is dated 18th Joista 1319. The contention of the defendants is that the mortgage was for a term of eight years, from Asar 1319 to Joista 1327, and that that being so, the plaintiff (an assignee of the mortgagor) had no right to maintain the suit before the expiry of Joista 1327. The general principle as to redemption and foreclosure is that in the absence of any stipulation, express or implied, the right to redeem and the right to foreclose are co extensive and this principle is embodied in Sections 60 and 62 of the Transfer of Property Act. As pointed out by the Judicial Committee in the recent case of Bakhtawar Begam v. Husaini Khanam 23 Ind. Cas.355 : 18 C.W.N. 586 : 26 M.L.J. 474 : 12 A.L.J. 473 : 36 A. 195 : 19 C.L.J. 477 : (1914) M.W.N. 411 : 15 M.L.T. 389 : 16 Bom. L.R. 344 : 1 L.W. 813 : 41 I.A. 84 (P.C.), 'ordinarily in th...
Tag this Judgment!Bainaddi Mandal and anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal623,64Ind.Cas.448
Richardson, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this second appeal arises, somewhat imarudently perhaps, took a lease purporting to be a mourasil mokarrari lease of an undivided 8-anna share of certain land, comprising a bhadrashan or homestead and a tank with its banks, the rent reserved being Rs. 2 per annum. The area of the whole plot is 10 cottas 12 chattaks.2. The lease is dated the 2nd April 1913. In 1917 the respondents, defendants in the suit, brought a suit for partition to which their co-sharers, the plaintiffs' lessors, were made parties. The plaintiffs themselves were not impleaded. In the result the tank was allotted to the respondents; but the portion of the land referred to as the bhadrashan was allotted to the plaintiffs' lessors and it is now in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs.3. The Trial Court found that the plaintiffs were never entitled under their lease to an 8-anna share of the whole plot but only to a 4 anna share, and that finding has been confi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim Mir and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal697,62Ind.Cas.878
1. In this case it appears that in the District of Faridpur on opposite side of the river Kumar there are two Hats, one at Kabirajpur on the south bank, one at Gosaidia on the north bank. The Kabirajpur Hat belongs to the Maharaja of Cossimbazar and one Dhulu Mia and is within the jurisdiction of the Rojair Police Station. The Gosaidia Hat belongs to an influential Zamindar named Krishna Das Roy and is within the Madaripur Station. The distance between the two Hats is some 670 yards and both sit on the same days, namely, Mondays and Fridays.2. The case for the prosecution then was that the officers of the Rajair Police Station entered into conspiracy with the men of Cossimbazar and Dhulu Mia to suppress the Gosaidia Hat and in pursuance of that conspiracy, these Police Officers, Chowkidars and others, the men of Cossimbazar and Dhulu Mia, some 50 to 60 in all, armed with guns, spears and Lathies, marched in a bony against Gosaidia. When they had proceeded some distance, they were met b...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanno Kumar Mandal Vs. Nilambar Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal189,64Ind.Cas.75
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage. The plaintiff alleged that the mortgage debt, principal and interest, had been satisfied long ago from the usufruct of the property, and that if accounts were taken, a large sum of money would be found due to the plaintiff. He, accordingly, prayed for a declaration that the principal amount had been satisfied, that a decree might be passed awarding possession of the mortgaged property to the plaintiff and directing the defendant to render an account for the period of possession held by him and that a decree might be passed for the amount which may be found due to the plaintiff after adjustment of accounts. The Court of first instance decreed the suit and that decree has been affirmed on appeal.2. The contention which has been raised in this second appeal is that the claim for recovery of the surplus profits received by the mortgagee was barred under Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, and reliance has...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manick Chand Mahata Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta and the Cal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.600
1. On the 6th January last I granted a rule at the instance of Manick Chand Mahata sailing on the Calcutta Corporation and the Calcutta Improvement Trust to show cause why they should not be restrained from acquiring or taking any further steps to acquire the promises No. 38, Banstolla Street, in this City, the property of Manick Chand, and the rule now tomes before me for hearing. Manick Chand purchased the premises now in question in June 1919 for a sum of Rs. 72,000, so he stated, and On the 25th February 1920, he obtained the sanction of the Corporation to the creation of a new building en the site outside the Municipal alignment of Banstolla Street. He states that he has erected on the site, in accordance with the sanctioned plan, a new building at a acts of ever Rs. 70,000, and that the market value of the premises is Rs. 2,50,000. On the 13th November 1920, be received notice from the Land Acquisition Collector of Calcutta that the premises were about to be acquired by Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!W. J. Rees Vs. John Young
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal543,66Ind.Cas.745
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for damages. The plaintiff is a Blast France keeper in the Bengal Iron and Steel co. the defendant is a a Superintendent of Collieries. On the night of the 9th December 1916 the plaintiff was proceeding on his motor cycle from Asansol to Kulti along the Grand Trunk Road, the defendant was driving his motor car in the opposite direction. The car and the cycle collided with the result that the cycle was damaged and the plaintiff sustained severe injuries. He was detained in hospital for a considerable time and has become maimed and disfigured for life. The plaintiff asserts that the collision was due to the negligence of the defendant and claims, Rs. 10,534 as damages. The substance of the case for the plaintiff is set out in the third and fourth paragraphs of the plaint Sled on the 6th August 1917, where ii is alleged that while the plaintiff was proceeding on his motor cycle along the left side of the road, he saw two...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kumar Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Prasanna Kumar Chakravarti and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal527,64Ind.Cas.997
Asutosh Mokerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against a decree of dismissal made by the District Judge of Chittagong on an application for revocation of Probate of a Will. The testator, one Tarini Charan Chakravarti, made a testamentary disposition of his properties on the 5th December 1909 and died two days later. The respondents, Prasanna Kumar Chakravarti and Satis Chandra Chakravarti, applied for Probate of the Will on the 13th January 1910. Chandra Kumar Chakravarti, the nephew of the testator, entered a caveat on the 1st March 1910. Probate was, however, granted on the 11th April 1910. Thereupon an appeal was preferred to this Court, with the result that the order of the Primary Court was set aside on the 18th March 1913 and the case was remanded for re trial in the presence of both parties. On the 6th August 1914 an order for Probate was again made. An appeal, preferred to this Court, was dismissed on the merits on the 2nd July 1915. During a considerable portion of the period ...
Tag this Judgment!Legal Remembancer Vs. Ahi Lal Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.996
1. The prosecution in this case has reference to a document registered on the 10th of July 1919 by the person Ahi Lal, against whose acquittal the present appeal has been preferred by Government. The document purports to be a conveyance transferring to one Marium Bibi four bighas of land in lieu of a sum of Rs. 49 said to be due to her on account of dower, The document describes Marium as the wife of Ahi Lal and recites that the marriage was celebrated on the date borne by the document, namely, the 12th of Baisakh.2. It has been found by both the Courts below that this document was executed by the accused Ahi Lal, that no marriage between Ahi Lal and Marium ever took place, and that, in fait, Marium was and is the wife of one Moti Mandal of village Idolpore.3.We have been taken over the whole of the evidence in the case, and we are satisfied that the findings of the Courts below are correct. The question in this appeal then is whether the accused has committed the offences punishable u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »