Kolkata Court April 1921 Judgments
Kumar Monmatha Nath Mitter Roy Bahadur and Vs. Chini Lal Ghose and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.81
Newbould, J.1. These two appeals have been heard together, as the point on which they both, depend is the construction of a clause in. a kabuliyat which is common to both the suits. This clause has been translated in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of the 24-Par-ganas, against whose decision Appeal No. 2645 of 1919 is preferred, as follows: 'If at every transfer, in any way, of the lands under this kabuliyat one-fourth, of the proper value of the land be not deposited in the office of yourself, your heirs and successors-in-interest, such transfer will not be recognized and to this no sort of plea or objection by any of us will be allowed. If we, the vendor and the vendee, both jointly or each of us separately and our heirs and legal represented do not pay amicably that amount to you, your heirs and representatives, you will be entitled to take khas possession of the land; under, this kabuliyat or, if you so desire, you can realise the money by suing the transferor...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanendra Nath Ghose Vs. Panchkouri GaraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.310
1. In this appeal the learned District Judge has held that Article 132 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the case of a loan which is to be repaid in paddy, the interest to be paid in paddy, security being given for it. But, since he decided the case, the point in question has been set at rest by a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chand Sur v. Iswar Chandra Giri 61 Ind. Cas. 539 : 32 C.L.J. 278 : 25 C.W.N. 57 : 48 C. 625. It is there held that a suit to recover the value of paddy charged upon immoveable property is a suit to enforce payment of money charged Upon immoveable property within the meaning of Article 132 of the Limitation Act. We must, therefore, hold that this appeal has been wrongly decided on the question of limitation. We accordingly decree this appeal and remand the case to the lower Appellate Court for decision of the other issues arising in the appeal, Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Tabrij and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Dutta and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.773
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits which were numbered 1068 and 1069 of 1917 in the Court of the Second Munsif at Howrah. In the first of the suits the plaintiffs were four Muhammadans who sued as representing the Muhammadan community in Makordaha village in the Hooghly District. They sued for a declaration that a certain tank and its four slopes or bagchars were pirathar property and for confirmation or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the same. The defendants in the suit are described generally as the Kundu Ohaudhurys and are sued as Zemindars of the village, in which the tank is situated. In Suit No. 1069 there are seven plaintiffs and six of these are defendants in Suit No. 1068. These plaintiffs sued for a declaration of their Zemindari right to 11-annas, 10 gundas share of the western bank of the same tank and also for the demolition of a pucca structure erected thereon. The defendants in that suit are the four plaintiffs in Suit No. 1068 and three othe...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Kumar Biswas Vs. Hemlata Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1921
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.949
Greaves, J.1. The petitioner, Birendra Kumar Biswas, asks that his marriage with the respondent, Hemlata Biswas, may be declared null and void on the ground that the respondent had been from before the marriage suffering from a loathsome disease of syphilitic origin alleged to be incurable and contagious, in consequence whereof she is said to be unable to consummate the marriage, and the petitioner alleges that the marriage was brought about fraudulently and that all information with regard to the disease was concealed from him.2. The suit was heard by Mr. Justice Fletcher on the 31st March 1919 and he dismissed it with costs; against the decree of the dismissal the plaintiff preferred an appeal and on the 31st May 1920 the case was remanded by the Appeal Court to this Court for re-trial.3. It was suggested by Counsel for the parties before me that the evidence taken before Mr. Justice Fletcher should be treated as evidence before me and that the parties would submit themselves for fur...
Tag this Judgment!Jagabandhu Saha Vs. Hari Mohan Roy, Who Appeared and Chandra Mohan Roy ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.653
Newbould, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed in execution proceedings. The plaintiff decree holder brought a suit against several defendants for establishment of his maliki title to an 8-annas share of certain properties. That suit was compromised with defendants Nos. 1, 6 and 7 and a decree against them was passed in terms of the solenama. We are now only concerned with two of the properties which were the subject matter of the suit. These are plot No. 21 of Schedule I and the property of Schedule VIII which is one plot only. These properties were dealt with in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the solenama. In paragraph 7 it was provided that the defendant No. 1 would remain the owner and possessor of property No. 1 of the 8th Schedule and the plaintiff's claim to the same would be dismissed. Paragraph 8 of the solenama provides: ''The plaintiff will get a decree in respect of the share claimed by him in property No. 21 and the defendant No. 1 relinquishes his right and possess...
Tag this Judgment!Parbati Charan Saha and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India in Counc ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1921
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.188
Woodroffe, J.1. In this appeal the appellant asks for a declaration that the land in suit is not assessable to revenue at the rate of 12 annas per bigha but at 8 annas.2. The plaintiff's case as set forth in the plaint may be briefly stated.--On the 9th January 1790, the plaintiffs predecessor, Bijoyram Saha, obtained from the Government a permanent grant by sanad in taluki right of Mahal Kalaram Chandipur Char Baleswar, etc., in the Sunderbans and was in possession of this taluk, which at first bore Touzi number 53 in the Jessore Collectorate, then Touzi number 837 in the Khulna Collectorte, and now bears Touzi No. 6556 in the Bakargunj Collectorate. According to the terms of the sanad no revenue was to be paid for the first three year?, and revenue was to be paid in the 4th year at 2 annas, in the 5th year at 4 annas, in the 6th year at 6 annas, and from the 7th year at the full rate of 8. annas per bigha of 110 cubits. The assessable area was to be calculated in this way--that from ...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Lalit Mohan S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal342,62Ind.Cas.578
Teunon, J.1. In this ease one Lolit Mohan Singh Roy was plated on his trial before the Sessions Court of Hooghly on a charge of murder. The trial was by Jury and by their unanimous verdict the Jury found him not guilty. Accepting the verdict, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, and against this order of acquittal the Local Government has preferred the present appeal. The person whose death is in question is a young girl or woman, Taralika Debi, the 2nd wife of the accused. She was about 16 years of age while the accused is over 50, and the case for the prosecution is that on the night of the 23rd March 1920, or early morning of the 24th, while they were in their bed-room together the accused, from motives of jealousy, attacked his wife with a sword, inflicting many injuries on her neck, head, face and other parts of her person and causing practically instantaneous death.2. The first information of the murder was lodged at the Thanah (Pursura) by the accused himself at 7 A...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Joyram Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.525
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The defence was that the plaintiff dispossessed the defendant from a portion of the lands and substantially interfered with the collection of rent from his bhag tenants.2. The Court of first instance held that there was dispossession in respect of 3 cottas of land and that the plaintiff had instigated the sub tenants under the defendant to withhold payment of rent and actively helped them in keeping the defendant out of the rent. In the result, the Munsif dismissed the suit.3. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence as to the dispossession of 3 cottas of land was of the weakest possible character and evidently the learned Subordinate Judge did not believe the case for the defendant that he was dispossessed from any portion of the land. So far as this part of the case is concerned, we cannot interfere with the finding in second appeal.4. With regard to the other question, namely, whether there was int...
Tag this Judgment!Bamandas Bidyasagar Bhattacharya Vs. Sadhu Majhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.445
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff also claimed additional rent for additional lands found in the tenant's possession and also enhanced rent for rise in the price of staple food crops.2. It appears that originally there were two holdings, one consisting of 5 bighas 1 3/4 cottas at a jama of Rs. 6.5 9 and Re. 1-12-9 was reserved as hajat. There was another holding of 5 bighas 3/4 cottas at a jama of Rs. 6.2.3 and Rs. 2 1-0 was kept as hajat. The total area of the two holdings was 10 bighas 2 1/2 cottas and the jama was Rs. 12-8. The plaintiff's case was that oat of the total hajat of these two jamas, namely, Rs. 3-13-9, a sum of Rs. 1-15 was made a part of the current rent and the jamas became Rs. 14-7-0 by the amalgamation of the two, jamas, taken with Re. 1-150 on account of the hajat, and that there has been an increase in the area of 4 bighas 4 1/2 cottas. The plaintiff contended that they were entitled to the fall hajat rent and addit...
Tag this Judgment!Pranram Mookerjee Vs. Maharajkumar Jagadish Nath Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Cal355,68Ind.Cas.562
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for accounts. The case for the plaintiff we a that the defendant was employed as his rent-collector from the, 12th December 1907 to the 11th October 1915, although no written agreement was executed and registered till the 5th October 1909. He prayed that a preliminary decree might be passed directing the defendant submit a correct account during his ter(sic) of office and that a final decree might be assed for the amount found due from the defendant on examination of the accounts. The substantial defense was two-fold; amely, first, that the claim was barred by (sic)biitation, and, secondly, that in so far as the claim might be found to be not tarred by Nation the amounts had been duly rendered. The Subordinate Judge has decreed t(sic)l suit and has directed the defendant to (sic)nder accounts for the period between the (sic)its of his appointment and the date of his dismissal. He has further directed the(sic) Commissioner be ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »