Kolkata Court March 1921 Judgments
Sailendra Nath Mitra Vs. Ram Charan Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1921
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.268
Asutosh Mookerjee1. This is a Reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, in an appeal from an appellate decree which arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract to grant a lease. The suit, which was instituted on the 27th August 1915 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapur, was valued at Rs. 1,200 for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction and at Rs. 32 for the purpose of payment of Court-fee. The claim was decreed in the Court of first instance and the first defendant was directed to execute in favour of the plaintiffs a lease for the disputed land on a fixed rental of Rs. 32. On appeal to the District Judge, the decision of the primary Court was reversed on the 17th January 1918 and the suit was dismissed. On second appeal to this Court, the decree of the District Judge was set aside and the case was remanded for re-trial. After remand, the District Judge re heard the appeal and affirmed the decree of the Court of first instance. Against this decr...
Tag this Judgment!Bholanath De and anr. Vs. Golabdi Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal616,64Ind.Cas.553
1. This appeal arises out of a unit for the establishment of the plaintiff's purchased jamai right to 1/7th share of 28 bighas of land and for recovery of possession of the same. The land originally belonged to one Nizamuddi Gazi, who left three sons and one daughter Nidra Bibi. The plaintiff purchased the l/7th share of Nidra Bibi from her heirs on the 5th Agrahayan 1320 B.S. Defendants Nos. 3 to 14 are the heirs of the three sons of Nizamuddi, who were entitled to 6/7th share of the land. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appear to have purchased all the lands at a sale held in execution of a mortgage decree against the sons of Nizamuddi or their representatives-in-interest, so far back as 1287. and it is found by the Court of first instance that the heirs of Nizamuddi took settlement of 18 1/2 bighas of land from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the latter are in possession of the 18 1/2 bighas of land through them as tenants from 1287. The remaining lands are alleged to be in the possession of de...
Tag this Judgment!Pramatha Nath Bose and ors. Vs. Bhuban Mohan Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal321,64Ind.Cas.980
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has led up to these appeals is a valuable estate which formed at one time the property of Gadadhar Ghose, the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. The relationship between the parties is set out in the following genealogical table:-- Gadadhar Ghose, died before 4th March 1862, M. Drabamayi, died 29th October 1878 | Rudreswari, died 7th December 1905, M. Maheshchandra Bose, died 14th April 1900 | ____________________________________|_____________________________________ | | | | | Pramatha, Pranah, Prakriti, Pramod, Pragnan, plaintiff plaintiff plaintiff plaintiff plaintiff No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5.2. Gidadhar Ghose died in the early part of 1862, leaving a widow Drabamayi and a daughter Radreswari. Upon his death, his estate vested in his widow, who died on the 2th October 1878. The estate thereupon passed into the Lands of his daughter Rudreswari, who took as the immediate reversioner and subsequently died o...
Tag this Judgment!Ambica Charan Sen Vs. Girish Chandra Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1921
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.719
1. This appeal arises cut of a suit for rent at the rate of Rs. 43-120 a year. The defense wag that the rent was Rs. 5. It appears that a part of the land which was held by the defendants under the plaintiff was Diara land and the rent of the Diara land was settled at Rs. 43-12 under the Diara Act XXXI of 1853.2. The Court of first instance gave a decree to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs, 48-12 annas. On appeal the leaned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff was bound by the contrast contained in a solenamah under which the defendants were liable to pay rent only at the rate of Rs. 5 and that such a contrast cannot be affected by the settlement of rent under the Diara Act. He relied upon the case of Muktaheihi Dasi v. Srinath Das 26 Ind. Cas. 215 : 19 C. L. J. 614, and there are several other cases on the point, fr(sic)ee Mohendra Nath v. Shyam Lal 23 Ind. Cas. 16 : 19 C. L. J. 308 : 18 C. W. N. 907, Pria Nath Das v. Ramtaran Chatterjee 30 C. 811 : 7 C. W. N. 601 : 30 I. A. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur Vs. Krishna Chandra Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.83
George Woodroffe, J.1. We have heard this case at very great length. The suit is one for declaration that certain partition proceeding instituted in the Revenue Court are illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation which govern the present case, and for an injunction on the defendant restraining him from proceeding with the partition The application was for a partition of the whole estate, leaving out seven villages on the ground that the plaintiff had no interest in them. The Court was asked to deal with matters in which both parties had joint interest. That appears to be a reasonable application, but it is objected that it is not one which can be entertained under the provisions of the Regulation to which I have referred. An objection was taken in the Revenue Court and rejected. On appeal to the Deputy Commissioner the appeal was dismissed. On appeal to the Commissioner the appeal was again dismissed. On recourse to the Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Arman Peada Vs. Manik Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal522,62Ind.Cas.690
1. The main question involved in this appeal is whether the suit out of which this appeal arises is barred by the special limitation under Article 3, Schedule III, of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been dispossessed in Pons 1323 of their raiyati land by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, at the instigation of the Raja, the defendant No. 3, and with the help of defendants Nos. 4 to 7. The suit has been decreed by the Courts below, overruling the objection that the suit was barred. The lower Appellate Court held that the special law of limitation had no application to the case, as the dispossession was by defendant No. 1 after the settlement by the Raja and after the execution of the kabuliyat in favour of the Raja. It is found, however, that the dispossession took place in 1317, and not in 1323 as alleged in the plaint.2. As stated above, the plaintiffs come to Court on the allegation that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with the assistance of the defendants Nos. 4 to 7,...
Tag this Judgment!Jogobondhu Pal Vs. Rajendra Nath Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal351,66Ind.Cas.121
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the preliminary decree in a suit for partition of joint properties. The subject matter of the litigation originally belonged to one Kedernath Chatterjee, who left a widow, Thakamani Dabi, and four song, Rajendra Nath, Bidhu Bhusan, Sudhir Kumar and Akshay Kumar. On the 10th August 1917 the plaintiff purchased from Akshay Kumar his right, title and interest in the ancestral properties. On the 8th April 1919 the plaintiff instituted the present suit for partition of the properties in which he had become a joint owner by purchase, and claimed to be planed in separate possession of a one fourth share after partition by metes and bounds. The widow of the original owner who was joined as a defendant, contended that she was entitled to a share in the event of partition, and that the plaintiff was consequently not entitled to more than a one-fifth share. The Subordinate Judge has given effect to this contention and has made a d...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Goala Vs. R.W.L. Reed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal269,64Ind.Cas.665
1. In this case the accused, a European British subject, was placed on his trial before the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar on a charge of having voluntarily caused grievous hurt by means of a revolver to one Gangadhar Goala. The trial was by a Jury of five Europeans and resulted in the acquittal of the accused. The Local Government having destined to prefer an appeal, the case comes before us on an application in revision made on behalf of the complainant, Gangadhar.2. This application is made substantially on the ground that the trial has been vitiated by serious irregularities in procedure, and by the failure of the presiding Magistrate to sum up the case to the Jury in any adequate manner.3. The accused, one R.W.L. Reed, is the Assistant Manager of a Tea Garden named Khoreal. Gangadhar is a cooly in that garden and has a daughter named Hira, some 13 or 14 years of age. It fa said that on the 18th of May the accused made immoral proposals to this girl Hira, and also approached the fat...
Tag this Judgment!Karim Chakladar Vs. Srimati Saporannessa Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal523,64Ind.Cas.330
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled, as landlord, to khas possession of an undivided, 8-anna share of a non-transferable occupancy holding on the ground of abandonment by some of the tenants. It appears that the holding belonged to one Salimuddi who died leaving his son Karim, the defendant No. 1, and two daughters, Khedi Bibi and Khati Bibi. Khedi Bibi transferred her 4-anna undivided share to one Khalik, who in his turn sold it to Karim in Baisak 1323. After having transferred her interest, Khedi Bibi surrendered her 4-anna share in favour of the landlord. The other daughter Khati Bibi also transferred her undivided 4 annas share to Karim, the defendant No. 1. The landlord sued for possession of 8 anna share on the ground that Khadi Bibi and Khati Bibi bad, abandoned their interest in the holding and also on the ground that in respect of the share of Khedi, there was a surrender in favour of the landlord. The Court of first instance gave a decre...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshan Bor and ors. Vs. NaranaraIn Hazrah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Cal260,66Ind.Cas.71
1. In this case is appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer of Contai, as a Collector, acting under the provisions of Section 69 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, sub Section (3), made an order prohibiting tie removal of certain crops. The case against the petitioners is that they disobeyed the said order and their prosecution under the provisions of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Cod has accordingly been directed.2. The contention of the petitioners is that Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable to the fasts alleged and that they should be dealt with, if at all, under the Code of Civil Procedure, Order XXXIX, Rule 2.3. In the case reported in Chandi Charan Giri v. Gadadhar Prodhan 44 Ind. Cas. 177 : 45 C. 336 : 22 C. W. N. 165 : 27 C. L. J. 316 : 19 Cr. L. J. 273, it has been held that the proceedings of a Collector acting under the provisions of Sections 69 and 70 of the Bengal Tenancy Act are of a Civil nature. His Court is, therefore, ore of civil jurisdiction and, in the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »